Fenil and Bollywood

Posts Tagged ‘Bombay High Court

Swati Deshpande | TNN (THE TIMES OF INDIA; October 2, 2009)


Mumbai: Three-and-a-half months after he was arrested for allegedly raping his maid in his own bedroom, actor Shiney Ahuja won bail from the Bombay high court on Thursday after his lawyer argued that there were inconsistencies in the rape complaint. He was, however, asked to leave Mumbai and stay in Delhi until he is required for the trial.


The 36-year-old actor’s jail stay will not end for at least another day. As the court order and the subsequent paperwork was not complete by the end of office hours and thanks to the holiday for Gandhi Jayanti on Friday, Shiney will finally step of Arthur Road jail only on Saturday, said his lawyers.


Apart from setting a bail amount of Rs 50,000 and a surety of the same amount, Justice A P Deshpande said the actor should surrender his passport and warned him against offering inducement to witnesses, directly or indirectly, and tampering with evidence.

Swati Deshpande | TNN (THE TIMES OF INDIA; October 1, 2009)

Mumbai: Shiney Ahuja’s legal team tried to create more holes in his alleged victim’s claim that she was raped between 3 pm and 5 pm in his Andheri house on June 14.

The Bombay high court on Wednesday was hearing the bail plea of actor Shiney Ahuja who
is accused of raping his domestic help. The court will pass its order on Friday.

Though the domestic help claimed to be raped between 3 pm and 5 pm, the records from the phone company showed that she was speaking on her cellphone between 3.15 pm and 3.45 pm, said Shiney’s
lawyers Shirish Gupte and Srikant Shivade on Wednesday.

The fact that the girl only mentioned the word “atyachar (torture)’’ in her statement on oath before the magistrate and not “rape’’ was also discussed. Justice A P Deshpande asked for the dictionary meaning of atyachar and Gupte said it, in
no way, meant rape. But public prosecutor Sangeeta Shinde said the 20-year-old domestic help’s FIR and medical evidence pointed at rape and that atyachar had to be construed in the context of the incident.

The judge found it strange that neither the girl’s nor Shiney’s clothes had semen or blood stains on them given that she
had worn her clothes “immediately after the alleged forcible sexual intercourse’’. The defence also wanted to know how the police officer had access to lab reports of the maid’s vaginal swabs when the same documents were denied to Ahuja by the sessions judge.

When the judge asked why the police had not recorded any statement of the neighbours, the state’s lawyer said, “In these sophisticated housing societies, neighbours do not bother to interfere even if someone dies.’’ The judge said it was not true as it was a neighbour who took the maid to the police station to lodge a complaint.

Wanted

Swati Deshpande I TNN (THE TIMES OF INDIA; September 10, 2009)


Mumbai: The Supreme Court on Wednesday allowed film producer Boney Kapoor to release his film Wanted (actor Prabhudeva’s directorial debut and a Salman Khan and Ayesha Takia-starrer) on its scheduled release date of September 18 against a deposit of Rs 2 crore in court within a week.


Kapoor had, through his lawyers Mukul Rohtagi and Ameet Naik, rushed to the apex court against a Bombay high court order directing him to furnish Rs 10 crore as security deposit in his dispute with B4U group. The high court had restrained Kapoor from creating third-party rights in respect of five films being produced by him, including Wanted. Taking the HC order to mean that Wanted would be left wanting a re
lease, he moved the SC in appeal. The apex court clarified that he could release the film.


Kapoor had signed an MoU with a B4U company in September 2006 for a joint venture to produce films. As Kapoor was in a debt trap and the JV understanding was still being discussed, LMB (a B4U group company) executed an agreement in August 2007 and extended an advance of Rs 10 crore to acquire rights of Kapoor’s five films. But the price of the five films was not fixed and Kapoor said he and B4U were unable to reach any joint-venture understanding. Kapoor’s claim was that he had to produce films to get out of his debt trap and “in the absence of any funds from B4U, he joined hands with Sahara and produced Wanted’’.


Aggrieved at Kapoor’s act, B4U filed a petition in December 2008 after more than a year to secure its claim of Rs 10 crore. The HC in February dismissed the petition on the grounds of delay, but allowed B4U to move before a sole arbitrator, who also dismissed B4U’s petition. Against the arbitration, B4U filed an appeal in the HC and succeeded. The HC directed Kapoor to deposit Rs 10 crore and not create further assignments.


Senior counsel Ashok Desai appearing for B4U did not object to the film’s release, but wanted Rs 10 crore deposited. Kapoor said that since it was just one film’s release, Rs 2 crore would be appropriate at this stage. Kapoor’s petition will be heard on September 29.

BYBH

Mumbai: Three months after B R Films’ Banda Yeh Bindaas Hai got embroiled in a court battle with 20th Century Fox, who claimed a copyright violation of its My Cousin Vinny, the Govinda-Lara Dutta-starrer is now set for a release. The two sides settled the matter on Wednesday. The Chopras and Fox signed consent terms and presented it before the Bombay high cout. The Chopras agreed to pay a substantial yet undisclosed amount to Fox.

THE TIMES OF INDIA (Aug 6, 2009)

Image Source: BOLLYWOOD HUNGAMA


Mumbai: Film-maker Ramgopal Varma will move the Bombay high court on Monday against the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) for banning the promo of his Amitabh Bachchan-starrer Rann. The CBFC rejected the promo on the grounds that the lyrics of a song were a distorted version of the National Anthem.

A letter was sent to Varma saying the promo violated guidelines 2(xix) of Section 5B2 of the Cinematograph Act, 1952, and also constituted an offence under the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act.

In reaction, Varma said, “The action is arbitrary and unconstitutional. Guideline 2(xix) of Section 5B2 of the Cinematograph Act, 1952, says national symbols and emblems should not be shown except in accordance with the provisions of the Emblems and Names Act, 1950. It means that no Indian film can show the Tricolour, Rashtrapati Bhavan or Parliament House. And, if the censor board did take that position, it could ask us for relevant cuts in the promo.’’

When told that lyrics of the National Anthem had been tampered with, Varma shot back, “Article 19 guarantees freedom of speech and expression and freedom of trade among other fundamental rights. Every citizen has the right to freely express and carry out trade unless it is contrary to the peace and integrity of the country. By denying me the right to release the promo, the board is violating my fundamental right.’’
BHARATI DUBEY (THE TIMES OF INDIA|TIMES NEWS NETOWRK (May 11, 2009)


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.