A local court in Mumbai has reserved orders on a petition seeking temporary injunction on the release of a web series called ‘Scam 2003: The curious case of Abdul Karim Lala Telgi,’ to be aired on SonyLiv.
City Civil Judge R.K. Kshirsagar on Friday reserved verdict on a plea filed by Telgi’s daughter and son-in-law seeking an injunction against the release of the series.
Advocate M.V. Thorat, appearing for the petitioner, contended that Director of the web series Hansal Mehta and Producers Applause Entertainment had not obtained the consent of Telgi’s daughter, son-in-law or any other kin before making a series on him.
He said the web series, even if it was based on a book written by a journalist, violated the family’s right to privacy, self-respect and dignity, as the book also had factual discrepancies and the same may be highlighted on screen.
Calling the portrayal of Telgi in the web series as false, baseless, derogatory, offensive, unpleasant and highly defamatory, the lawyer said that the same was made with the sole intention to defame the deceased, his daughter and her family.
The petition sought perpetual injunction against the makers of the series from streaming or airing it on SonyLiv or any other channel or online streaming platform.
Advocate Thorat pressed for an urgent temporary injunction till the suit was finally heard.
Representing SonyLiv, Advocate Rashmin Khandekar vehemently opposed the grant of any relief before being given an opportunity to present their version of the story.
Since the series was still at production stage, in any case, it was not going to be released in December, as apprehended by Telgi’s daughter, added the lawyer.
He said the book on which the series was supposedly based, had been published in 2004. There was a lot of material in the public domain on Telgi scam, which the makers of Scam 2003 had referred to during the making of the series, Khandekar added.
He further relied on the orders of the Supreme Court, which ruled that restraining orders could not be passed against the release of content based on public domain.
Stating that Sony was served with the suit only last evening, the Advocate sought time to reply.
Representing Applause Entertainment, Advocate Vaibhav Bhure pleaded that in a defamation suit, it was pertinent that the cause of action pointed to something causing defamation. Calling it a premature suit based on conjectures and mere apprehension, the lawyer sought rejection of the same.