Phantom Studios' plea for immediate injunction against Jiostar India over film rights rejected due to lack of demonstrated urgency.
In a significant ruling that underscores the importance of procedural fairness in intellectual property disputes, the Bombay High Court has denied Phantom Studios India Private Limited's request for urgent ad-interim relief against Jiostar India Private Limited. The case revolves around alleged joint ownership of intellectual property rights concerning a film, with Phantom Studios claiming a 50% stake.
Justice Gauri Godse, presiding over the matter, emphasized that ad-interim relief in intellectual property rights cases cannot be granted without clear evidence of urgency and without providing defendants an opportunity to respond. The court noted that Phantom Studios had been aware of the impending film release since early 2025, yet failed to sufficiently plead urgency in its plaint or interim application.
The plaintiff had cited a media interview from July 1, 2026, with the film's lead actress announcing the completion of shooting, as a basis for urgency. However, Justice Godse ruled that this interview was not included in the pleadings and thus could not be considered in the decision-making process.
Defendant No. 1, Jiostar India, represented by Senior Advocate Mr. Ravi Kadam, had previously replied to a legal notice from Phantom Studios in April 2026, indicating that the plaintiff was aware of Jiostar's stance on the matter. Justice Godse acknowledged this and granted Jiostar India two weeks to file a formal reply to the interim application, ensuring due process and the defendants' right to be heard.
The court has scheduled the next hearing for August 4, 2026, allowing both parties time to prepare their arguments. This decision highlights the judiciary's commitment to balancing the rights of intellectual property holders with the procedural rights of defendants, ensuring that relief is not granted precipitously without appropriate consideration of all parties involved.
Bottom line:-
Ad-interim relief in cases involving intellectual property rights cannot be granted without sufficient urgency being pleaded and without allowing the defendants an opportunity to file a reply.
Statutory provision(s): None explicitly cited in the judgment.
