Nehle Pe Dehla Rights Row: Bombay High Court Awards ₹1.92 Crore To Ultra Distributors

The Bombay High Court has declared Ultra Distributors Pvt. Ltd. the sole and exclusive holder of the video, cable television and video-on-demand rights to the 1976 Bollywood film Nehle Pe Dehla, starring Sunil Dutt, Vinod Khanna and Saira Banu.

Justice Arif S. Doctor held that the March 31, 2005 agreement under which Dhariwal Films assigned these rights to Ultra was valid and binding.

The court also held that Dhariwal Films failed to provide Ultra with Digibeta Master tapes of commercially exploitable quality as required under the agreement. It further found that Dhariwal Films had taken contradictory positions regarding competing claims to the same rights.

The court awarded Ultra ₹1,66,75,000 in compensatory damages. It also awarded ₹25,00,000 in punitive damages and ₹15,00,000 as costs. If Dhariwal Films fails to comply with the directions on damages and costs within eight weeks, interest at 8% shall apply.

The dispute concerned the rights to Nehle Pe Dehla, a 1976 Hindi film directed by Raj Khosla and starring Sunil Dutt, Vinod Khanna and Saira Banu.

Under the March 31, 2005 agreement, Dhariwal Films assigned Ultra the film's video copyrights, cable television rights, video-on-demand rights, and allied rights.

The agreement covered exhibition, exploitation, distribution and multiple telecasts of the film in any language, format or version across India, Nepal and Bhutan. The total agreed consideration was ₹42,51,000, of which Ultra paid ₹10,01,000.

Ultra approached the court, claiming that Dhariwal Films had failed to honour the agreement. It also claimed that Dhariwal had represented that an earlier assignment of the film's video rights to Showman Exports (India) Pvt. Ltd. had been cancelled.

The court found that Ultra had entered into the 2005 agreement on the basis of that representation. It also noted that Dhariwal had never disputed either the execution of the March 31, 2005 agreement or receipt of ₹10,01,000 from Ultra.

A rival distributor claimed that it already had prior and superior rights over the film's video rights. Its claim traced back to an agreement between Qamar Films and Showman dated February 4, 2002, followed by an agreement between Showman and the rival distributor dated May 30, 2002.

The rival distributor also relied on a Deed of Assignment purportedly executed by Dhariwal Films in its favour on August 28, 2002.

The court found that the rival distributor had failed to prove that it acquired the sole and exclusive video copyrights in the film under the May 30 and August 28, 2002 agreements. The documentary record did not disclose a clear and consistent chain of title, while the evidence raised doubts about the execution and validity of the documents.

The rival distributor had also filed a separate suit claiming rights in the film. The Bombay High Court dismissed that suit on April 20, 2026 after noting that the eight-year tenure of the assignment on which the rival distributor relied had come to an end.

In the present case, however, the court independently examined the rival distributor's chain of title. It held that the rival distributor had failed to establish any valid chain of title or any independent legal basis for declaring Ultra's assignment void or subject to the rival's alleged prior rights.

The court also considered Dhariwal Films' changing positions regarding the competing claims. It observed that the company had taken “different and plainly contradictory stands” regarding the creation of competing rights in favour of Ultra and the rival distributor.

The court found these positions “mutually inconsistent and incapable of reconciliation” and said they reflected a lack of credibility and commercial dishonesty on Dhariwal's part.

Dhariwal had represented to Ultra that the earlier assignment stood cancelled. It then entered into the March 31, 2005 agreement and accepted ₹10,01,000 as part consideration.

The Consent Terms subsequently executed between Ultra and Dhariwal, although not filed, expressly recorded that the 2005 agreement was “binding, valid and subsisting”. They also recorded Dhariwal's acknowledgment that it had received ₹10,01,000 and that Ultra was the lawful holder of the assigned rights.

The court also noted that Dhariwal had questioned the rival distributor's title on oath in another proceeding before later reversing its position and supporting the rival's claim to a prior and superior assignment.

The court then considered whether Dhariwal had complied with its obligation to provide Master tapes. Under the agreement, Dhariwal was required to provide Digibeta Master tapes of a quality capable of commercial exploitation.

Ultra's case was that Dhariwal had failed to provide Masters of the required quality within the stipulated period. The court noted that Dhariwal had not specifically addressed this allegation in its written statement.

The court therefore treated the allegation as admitted for want of a specific denial. It also considered Ultra's evidence and the surrounding material before concluding that acceptable, commercially exploitable Masters had not been established as having been delivered.

Even assuming that certain Digibeta tapes had physically been tendered, the court held that Dhariwal had failed to establish that they were of the required quality for commercial exploitation.

On damages, Ultra had claimed ₹1,66,75,000. The court found sufficient evidentiary basis for the claim, relying particularly on evidence that Ultra had been unable to commercially exploit the acquired rights, expenditure incurred in preparation for the proposed release, the commercial value of the rights and the largely unchallenged evidence led by Ultra.

The court was satisfied that Ultra had established a sufficient basis for awarding ₹1,66,75,000 in compensatory damages.

It additionally awarded ₹25,00,000 in punitive damages. The court made clear that this was not merely because Dhariwal had failed to perform its contractual obligations.

Instead, the court found that Dhariwal had acted in a manner showing that it sought to create multiple and competing rights in the same film on the basis of false representations, or representations it had no intention of honouring.

The court held that this conduct “really amounts to misrepresentation and cheating” and exposed Dhariwal's commercial dishonesty. It therefore held that punitive damages were warranted.

In addition to the ₹1,66,75,000 in damages and ₹25,00,000 in punitive damages, the court directed Dhariwal Films to pay ₹15,00,000 as costs.

The total amount directed to be paid under the order is therefore ₹2,06,75,000, apart from the conditional interest.

The court ultimately decreed the suit in Ultra's favour in terms of its prayer seeking recognition of the March 31, 2005 agreement and Ultra's sole and exclusive rights over the film's video, cable television, and video-on-demand rights.