The present case revolves around a copyright infringement claim concerning the upcoming release of the film “Sky Force.” The plaintiff, Sandeep Gangatkar, filed an urgent ad-interim application seeking to restrain the defendants from releasing the film, arguing that it infringed upon his original script titled “Fire Bird.” The plaintiff claimed that his script was based on historical events from the 1965 Indo-Pak war and that he had shared this script with Defendant No. 1, Sandeep Kewlani, in 2014. Upon seeing the trailer for “Sky Force” on January 8, 2025, the plaintiff realised that the film’s storyline closely resembled his script. After initial discussions with the defendants, which ultimately failed, the plaintiff moved the court on January 21, 2025, just days before the scheduled release on January 24, 2025.
The defendants, including major production houses, objected to the plaintiff’s late approach and argued that details about the film had been in the public domain since October 2023. They cited previous cases, such as Sushila Sharma v. Madhur Bhandarkar and Dashrath B. Rathod v. Fox Star Studios India Pvt. Ltd., where courts had refused to grant injunctions for copyright claims filed at the eleventh hour. They also provided affidavits and documents to demonstrate that promotional materials and media reports had long publicised the film’s storyline.
The Bombay High Court focused on two primary issues – whether the plaintiff had delayed unduly in filing the suit, and whether a prima facie case of copyright infringement was made out. The court noted that the plaintiff, being an industry professional, could not claim ignorance of publicly available material about the film. The court found that the plaintiff had known about the teaser released in October 2023 but had only acted after the full trailer was released in January 2025, which suggested a lack of urgency on his part. The court emphasised that such last-minute claims, especially in the film industry, placed undue pressure on courts and disrupted significant financial investments.
Regarding the copyright claim, the court noted that historical events, including the Indo-Pak war and the Sargodha air raid, were in the public domain and could not be exclusively claimed by the plaintiff. It also observed that while the plaintiff asserted creative elements in his script, he had not demonstrated substantial similarity beyond general historical references. Given the lack of clear evidence of copying and the delay in approaching the court, the balance of convenience favoured the defendants, who had invested over INR 250 crores in the film’s production and distribution. The court denied the ad-interim relief sought by the plaintiff, allowing the film’s release as scheduled. However, it permitted the plaintiff to continue with the main suit for damages and copyright infringement.