Ajay Devgn’s Bholaa Faces Legal Trouble After Kaithi Makers Move Bombay HC Over Film’s Remake Rights

Ajay Devgn faces legal trouble as Kaithi producers move the Bombay High Court, seeking restrictions on Bholaa’s distribution.

Ajay Devgn’s Bholaa Falls Into Legal Dispute

The case has been filed by Dream Warrior Pictures, the production house behind the 2019 hit Kaithi. The company claims it holds exclusive copyright and remake rights to the film and had previously entered into agreements for its Hindi adaptation, which was later made as Bholaa.

However, the producers allege that the financial terms of the agreement were not fully honoured. According to their claims, only a portion of the agreed payment was made, while the remaining dues—including additional instalments and revenue-linked payments—are still outstanding.

Reason Behind The Escalation Of The Dispute

The dispute reportedly escalated after several attempts by the original producers to resolve the issue did not yield a response. Consequently, they issued a legal notice seeking the pending dues along with interest. Additionally, cautioning that non-compliance would result in termination of the agreement and reversion of rights.

When the matter remained unresolved, Dream Warrior Pictures initially approached the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT). However, the tribunal dismissed the plea, observing that contractual and intellectual property disputes fall under the jurisdiction of civil courts.

Subsequent Proceedings In The Case

Following this, the producers filed a commercial intellectual property suit in the Bombay High Court. In their petition, they have sought an injunction to restrain the makers—including Ajay Devgn’s production banner and associated entities—from distributing, streaming, or monetising Bholaa and related content. They have also sought damages and a formal declaration that the agreement stands terminated.

Meanwhile, the defence has reportedly contended that jurisdiction lies with courts in Chennai, as stipulated in the original agreement. The court has since heard arguments on the matter, with the judge reserving the order on jurisdiction. The case underscores the complexities surrounding remake rights in the film industry, particularly when multiple stakeholders and contractual obligations are involved. The final ruling could have significant implications for how such agreements are structured and enforced going forward.