A Delhi court Wednesday summoned film-maker Ronnie Screwvala as an accused on a plea alleging copyright violation in his upcoming film 'Uri: The Surgical Strike'.
Additional District Judge Gaurav Rao directed Screwvala and film's writer and director Aditya Dhar to appear before the court on January 3 on a civil complaint by an author of a book, seeking permanent injunction on the release of the film.
The movie is scheduled to be released on January 11, 2019.
The suit, filed by Nitin A Gokhale, alleged that the film was based on his book 'Securing India-The Modi Way, Pathankot, Surgical Strikes and more' and infringed the copyright as the contents of the book were used without taking his permission.
The civil complaint, filed by advocate Neela Gokhale, has sought permanent injunction restraining the makers from screening the film without the author's consent and to delete the literary content of the book from the film.
"The defendants have infringed the copyright by reproducing and substantially copying the contents of the book into a film under the name and style of Uri: The Surgical Strike.
"The same has been done without taking any permission of the plaintiff or having been granted any licence to reproduce the work of the plaintiff in the form of the film as stated herein above. The defendants have violated the rights of the Plaintiff, despite a clear declaration and disclaimer in the Book," the complaint said.
He alleged that some agents had communicated to him that an offer would be made within a day or two regarding using the contents of the book and that he had also shown his willingness to associate.
"However, thereafter, there was no further communication with the plaintiff and the it appears that the Defendants have gone ahead to infringe the copyright of the plaintiff without his consent or knowledge," the complainant said.
He submitted that the claims of originality made by the film makers were incorrect.
"It is the literal imitation of the copyrighted work. The defendants (film makers) are thus trying to commercially exploit the original and authentic work of the plaintiff, without taking his permission, nor having a license for the same," he said.
(This story has not been edited by Business Standard staff and is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)