Today, (11th April), The Karnataka High Court allowed the release of the Bollywood movie “Maidaan.” The court lifted the stay previously imposed on the film’s release, clearing the path for its screening in the state. “Maidaan,” starring Ajay Devgn, depicts the inspiring story of Indian football coach Syed Abdul Rahim. With the legal hurdle removed, fans can soon enjoy this eagerly anticipated film in Karnataka.
Karnataka: The Karnataka High Court issued a stay order on a Mysore court’s decision to temporarily restrain the release of the Hindi film ‘Maidaan,’ starring Ajay Devgn, due to plagiarism allegations.
The stay order granted by Justice SR Krishna Kumar, who also issued a notice on a writ petition filed by Boney Kapoor, one of the film’s producers.
Read Also:Animal Movie OTT Release Cleared as Cine1 and T-Series Resolve Legal Dispute
The complaint of plagiarism made by filmmaker CR Anil Kumar, who alleged that the movie’s script used a story written by him with minor alterations. He claimed that he shared the idea with the film’s Assistant Director in 2017, who offered to introduce him to film producers. However, upon seeing the trailer for ‘Maidaan,’ he realized that it based on his story titled ‘Pathanduga.’
The District Court in Mysore granted a temporary stay on the film’s release, stating that,
“There is a prima facie case of infringement.”
However, Boney Kapoor approached the Karnataka High Court, arguing that the District Court’s order cryptic, non-speaking, and without any application of mind. Kapoor’s legal team contended that there no material to establish the alleged copyright infringement and that the stay order would cause irreparable injury and hardship.
Read Also:Mumbai Court Upholds Release of Hindi Film ‘Maidaan’
The High Court now issued a notice on the plea and stayed the order of the District Court until the matter is heard on April 24. The court found merit in Kapoor’s arguments and decided to temporarily lift the stay on the film’s release.
It’s worth mentioning that a Mumbai court previously refused to grant a stay on the film’s release in a separate case filed by a vendor who claimed unpaid dues.