“Amar Singh Chamkila”, a biopic of the slain Punjabi singer, features Diljit Dosanjh in the titular role, and has been directed by Imtiaz Ali.
To provide a practical resolution to the enforcement of the lien or charge, Reliance had offered an undertaking – the commitment includes the deposit of a fixed commission of 2% from the licensing fee, to be deducted from the final tranche Reliance receives from Netflix, and 50% of the profits generated by the film Amar Singh Chamkila, Justice Sanjeev Narula said in his order last week.
“These measures reflect an equitable approach to reconciling the interests of all parties involved and ensuring compliance with the contractual and legal frameworks governing the relationships between SCI, Reliance, Netflix and WSF,” he added.
“The above undertaking is accepted and shall bind the defendant (Reliance Entertainment), who shall deposit the aforesaid amounts with the Registrar General of this court as and when the same are received by them,” according to the judgement.
The single judge noted that the films “Section 84” and “Singham Again” have been produced by other entities, such as Film Hangar LLP and Rohit Shetty Picturez LLP, where Reliance is only a partner. “These productions are also then in collaboration, where the reasoning given above would apply,” it held.The HC said that “it is untenable for SCI to assert that revenues generated from the Netflix Reliance Agreement – executed under the License Agreement between WSF and Reliance – constitute revenues in Reliance’s possession over which, SCI can legitimately claim a lien or charge. Given the complexities inherent in distinguishing between gross revenues and direct profits accruing to Reliance, the court finds that SCI’s lien or charge, under the current circumstances pertaining to the film in question, is more appropriately enforceable over the net profits of Reliance, rather than the gross revenues.”Super Cassettes had extended a loan of Rs 268 crore to Reliance for production of 11 Hindi cinematographic films. Reliance allegedly having defaulted in repayment of dues led SCI to filing of a recovery suit for Rs 60.23 crore that became due as on November 16. Thus, SCI had asserted a lien and charge over any future films that Reliance Entertainment planned to produce, either independently or in collaboration with others.
In November, Reliance had assured the HC that it would refrain from releasing any cinematographic films or transferring any rights related to such films for a two-week period. However, SCI moved the HC alleging that the Ambani firm was planning to release five films.
While SCI had sought to stall the release of “Amar Singh Chamkila,” it later specifically demanded the deposit of Rs 42.16 crore which Reliance received from Los Gatos Production Services India LLP, an affiliate of Netflix Inc.
