Bombay High Court: Everest Entertainment's Copyright Claims Against Mahesh Manjrekar Rejected

Everest Entertainment took legal action against Mahesh Manjrekar and others, claiming that their film "Mi Shivaji Raje Bhosale Boltoy" was copied without permission and that the defendants were pretending it was their own. However, the court did not grant temporary help to Everest because they waited too long to take action.

Everest's Claims of Copying

Everest Entertainment said that Mahesh Manjrekar's film "Punha Shivaji Raje Bhosale" copied their film "Mi Shivaji Raje Bhosale Boltoy." They argued that the new film used their script, characters, and advertising materials.

"The Plaintiff believes without a doubt that the accused film is an obvious and direct copy of the Plaintiff's film."

Defendants' Argument: No Copying

The defendants, including Mahesh Manjrekar, argued that their film was original and focused on different topics like farmer suicides and corruption. They pointed out that the title "Shivaji Raje Bhosale" refers to a historical figure, which Everest cannot claim as their own.

"There can be no claim to owning the name of a historical figure."

Court's View on Delay

Justice Amit S. Jamsandekar noted that Everest waited too long to file the case even though they knew about the film in April 2025. The case was only filed in October 2025, which the court saw as a strategy to put pressure on the defendants.

"The delay by the Plaintiff is intentional."

Examination of Copying Claims

The court found no major copying of Everest's work. It stressed that the defendants' film was not an exact copy of Everest's film and that common Marathi phrases cannot be owned.

"The dialogues and phrases used by the Defendants...are common and natural Marathi-language phrases."

Claims of Pretending and Reputation

Everest also claimed their film's title had a good reputation, which the court rejected, stating no one can claim ownership over historical names like "Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj."

"The name of 'Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj' in any form cannot be owned by anyone."

Final Decision: Help Denied

The court refused to give temporary help because of the delay and lack of strong evidence of copying. The case will continue to a final hearing, allowing defendants to respond in detail.

"Temporary help is refused. The Interim Application will be listed for final hearing."

This case shows how complicated copyright law can be, especially when it involves historical and cultural topics, and highlights the importance of taking timely legal action.