A lawsuit between Super Cassettes Industries Private Limited (SCIPL) and Reliance Entertainment Studios Private Limited (Reliance) threatened to delay the release of the highly anticipated film Amar Singh Chamkila on Netflix which arrived on the platform on April 12. Back in April 2024, it was reported that the crux of the dispute revolved around a loan agreement and SCIPL’s claim on the film’s revenues, which was earlier reported by several publications.
Delhi High Court unveils Netflix payment of Rs. 45.16 Crore to license Diljit Dosanjh – Parineeti Chopra starrer: Report
According to Indian Kanoon Organisation website; SCIPL financed eleven Hindi films produced by Reliance after advancing them a total loan amounting to INR 268 crores. The deal required lien-ship as well as charge against their revenue from these films and future projects whether carried out solely or jointly upon Reliance. Subsequent amendments effected via communication cemented SCIPL’s entitlement to recover its INR 168 crore disbursed in making six movies together with cost of capital.
SCIPL alleged that Reliance failed to repay hence they sued for recovery of INR 60,23,73,358 inclusive of principal sum, cost of capital and income items mentioned in the loan agreement. Consequently, SCIPL requested court not to allow Reliance produce any new films until all amounts outstanding have been settled so as to enforce its lien and prevent further financial losses.
At first, Reliance assured the Court that it would not exhibit any films or transfer related rights thereof for two weeks. Nevertheless, this did not satisfy SCIPL who raised worries when they learnt that five such pictures were being prepared for release including Amar Singh Chamkila slated for Netflix on April 12th 2024.
During initial hearing at SCOPI’s intention was stopping any release of this movie completely but later they changed their tactics and reduced their demand to a deposit of INR 42.16 crore. An amount representing the money received by Reliance from Netflix’s affiliate, Los Gatos Production Services India LLP.
Reliance strongly opposed this while arguing that SCIPL had made excessive demands outside what was applied for besides not being given a fair chance to be heard. Moreover, they contended that Reliance Entertainment held no shares in WSF as it was an independent unit only owning 99.99% shares with Amar Singh Chamkila being its product. This claim was supported by evidence such as certain marketing materials that identified them as the producer and statements from its group CEO that indicated this is “The Next Movie From Reliance.”
A counter-argument to these claims brought forward inconsistencies on behalf of SCIPL who mentioned that Reliance admitted producing the movie in their reply before a Civil Judge Ludhiana under separate application filed through Window Seat Films LLP (WSF). At the same time, promotional materials of Amar Singh Chamkila on Netflix showed reliance as one among its producers. On the other hand, reliance defended themselves by asserting those pleadings were made at ludhiana on behalf of WSF and that a producer under copyright act means someone taking first step and responsibility thereby making creative work.
SCIPL further strengthened their case by questioning the genuineness of the License Agreement between Reliance and WSF. It was alleged that, under this agreement, Reliance had been given the right to sub-license WSF-created content to other companies, earning only 2% commission on it and not getting any share of the licensing fee. They considered this as a maneuver to avoid their claim for future film revenues. Furthermore, they argued that Content License Agreement and its amendments between Netflix and Reliance regarding “Amar Singh Chamkila” implied a principal-to-principal relationship indicating that Reliance is the producer.
SCIPL also stated that if these claims were made by SCIPL, it would be a risk for them because before any court order these funds could be transferred into Reliance’s account including Netflix revenue. Therefore outstanding amount payable with admitted lien over future films by Reliance meets balance of convenience irreparable harm tests.
On the other hand, in response to SCIL’s motion for preliminary injunction, WSF emphasized its independent role as producer. The Indian Film & TV Producers Council recognized WSF as the producer after acquiring rights for making a biopic from them. In addition to that, in movie certification documents Imtiaz Ali was listed as one of Window Seat Picture LLP partner (WSF stakeholder) acting as producer. For instance according to license agreement signed by Reliance, their involvement is simply limited in sublicensing contents produced by WSF which makes it secondary producers rather than primary ones.
Initially SCIL wanted Amar Singh Chamkila’s release delayed; but later asked for Rs 42.16 crore received from Netflix’s associate company by Reliance.”
