Mumbai court refuses to stay OTT release of Dhurandhar 2 in plagiarism suit

A Mumbai civil court on Thursday refused to stall the OTT release of a Hindi film in connection with a plagiarism suit by writer Santosh Kumar RS (plaintiff) [Santosh Kumar RS v. Aditya Dhar & Ors.].

Ad-hoc judge Yunus MD Hanif Kharadi held that Kumar failed to establish a prima facie case of copying or make out any urgency for interim relief.

The Court further observed that Kumar had not made out the case to show the similarity of scripts and dialogues.

“Prima facie Kumar has not made out the case to show the similarity of script and dialogues and already the movie was released in December-2025 and second part also released, but today there is domestic release on OTT platform, but Kumar has not made out party to the OTT platform, therefore balance of convenience also does not lie in his favour. Hence, if ad- interim relief is granted in favour of Kumar, it will cause irreparable loss to the film makers”, the Court held. 

The judge also held that if Kumar succeeded in the suit, he could claim compensation, so no irreparable loss would be caused to him. 

Kumar moved the Court alleging that the filmmakers copied his story and dialogues for a film whose first part released in theatres in December 2025, followed by a sequel.

He moved an application seeking urgent orders to restrain the domestic OTT release and for appointment of a court commissioner to compare his script with the film’s script.

On June 4, the filmmakers and producers opposed the plea. The OTT platform was not made a party to the proceedings.

Kumar argued that there was similarity between his script and the film and that he had earlier emailed the story to the defendants, asking that no work be done without a formal contract. However, the Court noted that Kumar had not placed on record any comparative chart of the two scripts or dialogues to substantiate the allegation of copying at this stage. 

The judge also noted that Kumar had not added the OTT platform as a party despite seeking to restrain the platform from releasing the film, and hence, the relief was not justified in the absence of such a necessary party. 

Dhar and B62 Studios was represented by Advocates VK Dubey, Chirag Mody, Parag Khandhar, Chandrima Mitra, Tapan Radkar and Zara Dhanbhoora briefed by DSK Legal.

Jio Studios was represented by advocates Sushma Singh, Ashwin Unrikar and Priyal Gandhi briefed by law firm SHS Chamber.   

T-Series was represented by advocate Vinayika Shahi briefed by law firm Naik Naik & Co.  

[Read Order]