Makers of upcoming Bollywood flick, 'Uri: The Surgical Strike', and the author of a book based on the incident buried the hatchet over alleged copyright violations in a Delhi court after the writer was paid a settlement amount, which was not disclosed, sources said.

The complaint for alleged violation of copyright was filed by Nitin A Gokhale, a journalist and author of the book, against the film's producer Ronnie Screwvala and director Aditya Dhar.

The movie is scheduled for release this Friday.

According to the court sources, the makers of the movie agreed to pay a certain amount to Gokhale, without any credit in the film. The amount of the settlement was not disclosed, citing confidentiality of an memorandum of understanding signed between both the parties.

They are likely to move an application before Additional District Judge Gaurav Rao for withdrawal of the complaint, said the sources.

The book, 'Securing India - The Modi Way, Pathankot, Surgical Strikes And More', has talked about the aspects of the planning and execution of the surgical strikes, which the Indian Army conducted on terror launch pads across the Line of Control on September 29, 2016.

Gokhale's advocate had earlier told the court that the film infringed the copyright as the contents of the book were used without taking author's permission.

The author has sought an order to stop the screening of the film without his consent and to delete the literary content of the book from the film.

The makers of the movie had opposed the application on the ground that there was no copyright on the facts and ideas as a lot of information was already in the public domain after the incident.

They maintained that mere similarities between the film and the book cannot be termed as copyright violation.

The complaint had alleged that the film-makers infringed the copyright by reproducing and substantially copying the contents of the book into the film.

"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," it had said.

(This story has not been edited by Business Standard staff and is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)