#India- Khap bans DJ in 42 Haryana villages #FOE #Music #censorship #wtfnews


Now, Haryana khap bans disc jockeys

By , TNN | Dec 12, 2012, 04.17 AM IST

Now, Haryana khap bans disc jockeys
A khap panchayat in Hisar, Haryana banned disc jockeys on Tuesday for “creating noise in marriages and other functions” in 42 villages of the district.

HISAR: A khap panchayat in Hisar, Haryana banned disc jockeys on Tuesday for “creating noise in marriages and other functions” in 42 villages of the district.

Phool Kumar, a spokesperson of the Satrol khap panchayat, said that the violators would have to pay a fine of Rs 5100.

On Sunday, one man was shot dead while five others were injured following the clash after few villagers objected to the presence of a DJ in Khurda village of Kaithal district.

Addressing the panchayat, Inder Singh, a khap leader, said, “The DJ system is causing noise pollution and is also harmful to the animals kept by farmers. Due to high volume of music, people can’t milk buffaloes and cows in the morning as the animals are unable to sleep at night.”

“With DJs around, youngsters dance under influence of liquor and sometimes misbehave with women. Because of this women can’t participate in celebrations, preferring to stay indoors. It’s a waste of money, especially when the villagers are facing financial crisis,” Singh added.

There are more than 100 villages in Rohtak, Mahendergarh, Rewari and Bhiwani districts where khap panchayats have prohibited DJs in the last five years.

 

After release, Pak scientist Dr Khalil Chisti ‘thanks India’


Dailybhaskar.com | Dec 12, 2012, 11:54AM IST
 Comment

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday freed Pakistani vitologist Dr Khalil Chisti in connection with a murder case.
The court found Dr Chishti guilty of the offence of voluntarily causing hurt but sentenced him for the period already spent by him in jail.

Media reports say that the court ruled that there was no requirement of further custody of Dr Chisti as he has already spent 1 year and 4 months in custody.

Dr Chisti told Dainik Bhaskar: “I’m happy with Indian govt and people of India. Just want to return home (Pakistan).”

 

 

Aparna Marandi in Jail, Accused of Being ‘Naxal’ #Vaw #stateoppression


Posted by vvadmin On December – 11 – 2012

Aparna Marandi and her 4 year old son Alok Chandra Marandi , Sushila Ekka and Baby Turi and Satish were arrested at Hatia Railway station, Ranchi on Saturday, 8th of December by the Jharkhand Police.

They were taken to the CBI office at Morhabadi in Ranchi. They were interrogated there by policemen. At 10 o’ clock at night, they were taken to the women’s police station.

Under the guise of interrogation, the policewomen used foul language and undignified slang. The women were mentally and verbally abused. When the women expressed a basic need, like to use the toilet, they would be lambasted by the brute policewomen.

(Yet anotherpeace loving, justice seeking Jharkhand human rights activist) has been implicated in so-called ‘Maoist Attacks’.

Baby Turi, Sushila Ekka and Satish have been released on the evening of the 10th. Before being released the police tried to force them to sign a document stating that they were released on the 9th. They refused to do so.

Aparna is now being taken to Dumka prison. Her child is with her. Her camera has been confiscated.

Stay tuned for further updates.

PRESS RELEASE-Hubli-Dharwad Police terrorize human rights activist on #HumanRightsDay


We condemn the blatantly communal actions and harassment of human rights activists by B. A. Padmanayan (Police Commissioner, Hubli-Dharwad), S. M. Pratapan (DCP – Law & Order, Hubli-Dharwad) and Sachin Chalawadi (Police Inspector, Old Hubli Police Station)

 

We demand immediate suspension of these 3 police officers and their prosecution.

 

Praja Rajakiya Vedike applied for police permission on 3rd December, 2012 to hold a rally and public meeting in Hubli on 11th December 2012 along with other human rights organizations. The purpose of the rally is to press for an end to the human rights violations of ordinary people with a focus on the arrest of innocent Muslim youth and fabrication of false evidence against them.

 

The Old Hubli police station had given us permission in writing on 7th December 2012. When we approached Town Police Station on 7th December 2012, we were told to collect the permission letter from Police Commissioner’s office on 8th December 2012. When we contacted the Police Commissioner’s office on 8th December 2012, Mr. Ullikashi, the in-charge officer told us that the Commissioner was not in the office on 8th and 9th (9th being a Sunday (holiday)), and requested us to collect the permission letter on 10th December, Monday. On Sunday evening we visited Old Hubli Police Station on their request.

 

During our meeting with Mr. Sachin Chalawadi, Police Inspector told us that there is a leaflet being circulated in the area about this planned protest and that banned organizations such as SIMI are taking part in our rally, when we questioned him about these statements and clarified that Students Islamic Organization (SIO) which is one of organisation involved in this protest is not SIMI, (and has no links with SIMI) he took back his statement. But he continued to say that we can’t question police actions through public rally and the only way to question police actions is through the court of law. We stated that freedom of speech and expression is guaranteed by the constitution of India and that the citizens of India have rights to question police actions publicly.

 

On Monday morning we visited Mr. G. M. Desur (ACP, South, Hubli) after getting a phone call from him. He also stated that he can’t permit our rally as it will create a law and order problem in the area. He also stated that we can’t question police actions through public rally and the only way to question police actions is through court of law. He also stated that they can’t permit a public meeting near Ambedkar Statue, near Hubli Railway station except on Ambedkar Jayanthi day.

 

On Monday afternoon we went to the office of Police Commissioner of Hubli-Dharwad. After waiting for more than 2 hours, only one of us, Mr. Mallappa Kumbar was permitted to meet him, which is discriminatory as we have seen teams of multiple people meeting the Police Commissioner. Mr. B. A. Padmanayan (Police Commissioner, Hubli-Dharwad) and Mr. S. M. Pratapan (DCP – Law & Order, Hubli-Dharwad) harassed and terrorized Mr. Kumbar. They threatened to arrest him under charges of terrorism if he doesn’t stop working for the rights of Muslims. They told him that terrorists are using him. Their behavior was similar to that of goondas – using vulgar and abusive language, threatening to physically beat him. He was coerced into giving a letter stating that he came to know after interacting with Police that the purpose of our rally was not related to that organizations that are co-organizing this and hence he was taking back the request letter to hold the rally and public meeting. He was able to get of this ordeal only after the intervention of the media representatives.

 

What has happened is nothing but torture of a young activist in the office of Police Commissioner by highest ranking police officials. It is ironic that this happened on the International Human Rights Day. The Hubli police have acted at the behest of communal forces to suppress the legitimate dissent by the religious minorities and secular activists to end communal-bias by police. Hubli-Dharwad police is misusing their power to isolate Muslim community from dalit, backward class, progressive, sexual minority and other marginalized sections of society and break the unity of secular forces.

 

We demand immediate suspension of all 3 police officers and their prosecution for their communal and illegal actions.

 

Yours faithfully

 

Elavarthi Manohar

Convenor, Praja Rajakiya Vedike

Phone: 96322234609483950202

 

Chronology of Communication- Anurag Kashyap and Shilpa Munikempanna on 12.12.12 #kracktivism


 

Pic courtesy- R ajeev bhatt

The email exchange between Shilpa Munikempanna, Anurag Kashyap and representatives of Large Short Films and Showhouse can be consulted here  Email, the email exhanges are from September 5th 2012, Nov 23rd 2012 . According to  Shilpa  Munikempanna, a  legal notice was sent to Omer Haider, MD Showhouse and Abhijit Das, CH Large short films invoking arbitration based on unfair dismissal, unpaid dues and questioning the legal ground of the agreement signed, on 3rd December 2012 through her lawyer. A petition was also filed in the Mysore High Court on 5th December but due to the boycott by lawyers, Bandh in Mysore she was  unable to proceed any further and stop them from using her  film and paying her dues.The petition  is posted for hearing on December 15th, 2012 .

Shilpa Munikempanna says 

The open letter was the last resort otherwise I would have very much liked to have done this quietly, this ugliness is not something that provides jouissance.

Kracktivist clarifies 

 Shilpa did not get her dues before the letter was posted, the open letter to Anurag Kashyap  on project 12.12.12. was posted at 10.40am ,Dec 11th, 2012 here, Shilpa got her money at 1230 pm .Dec 11, 2012 

Anurag Kashyap sent the reply to me by email here it is –

The Last Act: To the 12th director who chose to disappear

In the light of all the accusations that Shilpa has chosen to make in the “Open Letter”, we would like to state the process we went through in this journey to The Last Act.

We had opened a “Contest” for Project 121212. It was not a commission made to anybody. Everybody was working for the brand Royal Stag Mega Movies. We created this platform for Large Short Films. We have showcased and promoted more than 80 short filmmakers in the past 3 months. We have premiered their films, produced independent films and promoted them on our site, with the brand’s promotional budget without any revenue stream from these films whatsoever. Anurag Kashyap, Sudhir Mishra and Showhouse had been commissioned a job to create and promote independent short films.

When we announced Project 121212, we got more than 600 showreels from across India. Anurag, Sudhir and Chakri chose 52 film makers from that list. Finally the 12 were chosen from there. Shilpa was the only one woman to be chosen in the final 12. So what is her grudge? Should we have a quota in such contests? Or should we apologise for choosing her? Or she is upset that she was chosen in the first place amongst all the men? We don’t understand the point.

Then the 12 filmmakers were sent a plot written by Anurag Kashyap. This seed plot was sent to all the 12 filmmakers with the contract. Yes… the contract stated that the filmmakers could not coordinate with each other. Shilpa has a grudge with that too. But if she did have a problem with that, why didn’t she voice that, when she signed the contract?

We promised Rs 75,000 to all the filmmakers for making a 10 minute film. Isn’t it fair that an advance is paid and the balance is paid on delivery? Isn’t that how the whole industry works? Or any industry for that matter? So we paid Rs 30000 to each filmmaker as an advance. The balance to be paid after the film was delivered to our satisfaction… because this is a contest. And we haven’t commissioned an independent individual short film. It has to fit into the larger story.

Each filmmaker, including Shilpa had signed a contract, which categorically mentioned all these terms and conditions. A filmmaker from Bengaluru was shortlisted as the top 12 but opted out on day 1 as he felt he could not participate under such conditions. We accepted his resignation and appointed the next in the shortlist. If she had a problem with the terms and conditions of payment, why didn’t she choose to opt out? Why did she sign the contract? What was the carrot? We were transparent from the beginning.

Once the scripts came to us, we had to make changes in all the scripts to match it to the climax, which Asmit was directing. These changes were sent to all the filmmakers with the entire script. So Shilpa knew the changes she had to make to fit into the larger picture, because this wasn’t a stand-alone short film.

When we received the films after the shoot and edit, we matched it to the shooting script. 3 scripts had deviated from the original script. Shilpa’s was one of them.

On 21st November:

We wrote to all the 3 filmmakers about the changes that need to be made to be part of the collaborative project. Apart from Shilpa, both the other filmmakers agreed to the changes, we discussed and finally added some portions to the film. They got the same time to make the changes that the others got. But she got back and said that she didn’t have time to shoot the additional portions.

On 22nd November:

We offered to shoot her portions that were required to complete the film.

On 23rd November 2012:

Shilpa got back to us through an SMS where she sent her actor’s number and the contact for the location in Bangalore where she shot, and gave us the permission to shoot. Interestingly, all the filmmakers were supposed to base their stories in the city they were chosen from. Varun Chowdhury shot in Hisar. Kabir shot in Chandigarh. Anurag Goswami shot in Lucknow. Tathagata shot in Kolkata. But guess what? Shilpa is from Mysore but shot her film in Bengaluru. But then there was no legal binding so we couldn’t say anything.

On 22nd November:

As per our discussion with Shilpa, we spoke to her actor and her location to organize a shoot in Bengaluru.

On 23rd November:

A day later we got a mail from Shilpa telling us that she didn’t want to be part of this project as we were making changes in her script. But even in her mail, she asked if she would get paid even if we didn’t use her film. Obviously, the contract didn’t allow us to pay her if she didn’t complete the film. So is it wrong a reject a film based on quality in a competition? Or even after signing the agreement are we supposed to accept the film even if it doesn’t fit into the larger picture? No one is acting God in this. We are just playing by the rules. Everybody was doing that, including the other 11 film makers.

Here is an excerpt from her mail:

“If you want to reject my work please let me know.

If you want to shoot and add a prelude to my work please let me know.

If you want to not pay me or pay me please let me know.”

While we went ahead and changed our plan to get in the 12th director, everything went on peacefully till Shilpa sent is a legal letter to invoke the arbitration clause.

The legal letter reached us on: December 1st, 2012

She waited for almost a week before she us the letter. Surprisingly, it was the same time when we announced the theatrical release of “The Last Act”.

We took a couple of days to consult our lawyers and got back to her yesterday with an offer to pay her the balance Rs 45000 and end the matter as we had already gone ahead with the film without using her segment.

We spoke to her lawyers on 10th December afternoon and decided that we would pay Rs 45000 and waive off any rights on our copyrights to her film. It was silly on our part… why would we pay her the full amount and still not acquire the rights? Then what are we paying her for? Secondly, she wrote in her legal notice that she spent more than 1 lac for the production of her film. She knew from day 1 and she had only Rs 75000 to work with. If she over shoots her own budget, who should be penalized for it? The producers or the director? Or is that also our fault?

We spoke to her lawyer and they said we should increase our payment to her by Rs 5000. To cover her legal expenses. So she “threatens” to sue us. A day before the release (haven’t we heard that before?) and then wants us to pay for her expenses. And again, we complied. This morning, we paid her Rs 45000 (after TDS) and Rs 5000 (For her lawyers… who does that?) Her lawyers sent us a letter last night, stating that if we pay them before 12 noon, they won’t sue us!! We paid her this morning. Then she posted the “Open Letter to Anurag Kashyap”. After getting paid. Is that legal?

An excerpt from her lawyer’s last mail to us after we have paid Shilpa in full despite not using her film in “The Last Act”. So we have paid. We hand over the copyright. What else now?

Dear Mr.Das,

 

Thank you and Showhouse for your cooperation and reimbursing the expenses.

 

However in furtherance of the legal communication sent to you yesterday, kindly acknowledge that Showhouse has no copyright on the film “Sleep” directed by Shilpa. Pls also dispatch a hard copy of this letter to Ms.Shilpa’s postal address. 

 

Only once you do the same we will be in a position to withdraw our application before the courts in Karnataka. 

 

After withdrawing the same, we will send you a scanned copy of the order sheet. 

 

Best Regards

 

Sunayana

Now she is mocking Royal Stag Mega Movies LSF, Showhouse, Anurag Kashyap, Abhijit Das and Asmit Pathare.

She is mocking Anurag who was generous enough to offer her something this morning. He told her (through Abhijit) that though her film can’t be part of the collaborative feature film, LSF will release her film individually. We offered to fly her down tomorrow for the premiere and make that announcement to the media. We wanted to appreciate her film even before she posted the “Open Letter”… No Shilpa, we were trying to be fair. Unlike what you said in your last mail… we didn’t malign you one bit. You did that. We didn’t even announce that your film wasn’t accepted. We graciously moved on.

Shilpa asked Abhijit not to call her directly. We should speak to her lawyers. And that she doesn’t want anything to do with LSF or Anurag Kashyap. So we spoke to her lawyers and informed them about the “Open Letter”.

So here we are:

–          We paid Shilpa her entire amount and some more for her legal expenses. For a product she didn’t deliver.

–          She has also retained the copyright for her film after graciously accepting the payment (she has stated this in her blog herself. Guess that’s legal.)

–          She has breached a contract by announcing in public before the release.

This is her mail to us, after she had already published her “Open Letter” on the internet. And hoped that nobody would read it? So what was the point? She just wanted money for work she hadn’t delivered? So she withdrew the case on the payment? So she doesn’t feel so strongly about the female inequality anymore? Or that got solved the moment we paid up? What about the integrity of not being part of an unfair project? It becomes ethical on a payment of Rs 75000? That’s a pretty flimsy stand to take after writing an “Open Letter to Anurag Kashyap”. One could have just asked for the money.

 

———- Forwarded message ———-

From: Shilpa Munikempanna ‪<shilpa.munikempanna@gmail.com>

Date: Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 7:27 PM

Subject: Re: Open letter to Anurag Kashyap

To: letters@thehindu.co.in, editor@openmedianetwork.in, editor@tehelka.com, editor@expressindia.com, ttedit@abpmail.com, letters@hindustantimes.com, ratnam@intoday.com, submissions@outlookindia.com, toieditorial@timesgroup.com, editor@deccanmail.com, editor@the-week.com, editor.thecaravan@delhipress.in

 

 

Dear Sir/ Madam, 

 

Today morning the Large Short films and Showhouse have approached me and agreed to reimburse the expenses. They have paid the reimbursement today and also have agreed to assign all the copyrights to me.

 

Thus I do not want you to publish the attachment “open letter to Anurag Kashyap” as the Mr.Anurag Kashyap and LSF along with Showhouse has already reimbursed me today and has agreed to assign the copyrights. Though I am yet to receive a confirmation email, I do not want this letter to be published any more.

 

Thanks 

 

Regards

Below is the petition in court

IN THE CIVIL COURT AT MYSORE

ARBITRATION APPLICATION NO.                            OF 2012

Shilpa Munikempana                                                   )

Mysore                                                     )

Karnataka                                                                   )      … APPLICANT

Versus

1. Showhouse Event Management Private Limited     )

a Company incorporated under the                          )

laws of India, having its registered office at            )

Dettinners Compound 126, SV Road                      )

Jogeshwari (W), Mumbai – 400102                          )

Represented by its Managing Director                     )

2. Largeshortfilms                                                         )

Having office at Detinners Compound                     )

126, SV Road                                                            )

Jogeshwari (W)                                                         )

Mumbai – 400102                                                     )

Represented by Managing Director                          )

Mr.Abhijeet Das                                                        )…RESPONDENTS

MOST RESPECTFULLY SUBMITED:

The Applicant most respectfully submits as follows

  1.  The address of the Applicant and Respondents are as mentioned in the causetitle above. The Applicant may also be served with all communications, summons etc through their counsels M/s Common Law Chambers and Shri Umesh Advocate having its office at ________________________________________________.
  2. Applicant is a film maker focusing mostly on short filmmaking. Respondent No.1 is a company engaged in organizing events and shows. Respondent No.2 is an initiative of Respondent No.1 who has prestigious directors in their core team and was founded and managed by Shri Abhijit Das to provide a platform to short film makers to release their films.
  3. The Applicant has several works amongst which one famous work of the Applicant is her film “Kaveri” which won the best short film award in (IDSFFR 2011) and thereafter won the best Asian Short Film at Aguilar Film Festival, Spain. The said film was also premiered in Kiev International Film Festival, Ukraine. She is currently actively working with IAWRT in their festival “our lives to live..” by women film makers about gender and violence.
  4.  Respondent Nos.1 and 2 were desirous of making a film 12.12.12 which is a collaboration of 12 short films. The Respondents invited film directors to participate in the selection process which commenced on 29th July 2012 and ended on 16th August 2012 with the submission of showreels of each film maker. The Respondents have Royal Stag Mega Movies as their chief sponsor as well as most eminent film directors viz Shri. Anurag Kashyap, Asmith Pathare, Sudhir Chakri in its core team to ensure visibility, publicity and ensure a steady revenue stream for the production of 12.12.12 a collaboration of 12 short films. Hereto annexed and  Annexure “A” is a copy of the press clipping of the proposed production of the short film series.
  5. The Applicant was first shortlisted for the 50 best Directors in August and thereafter on 5th September, 2012 the Applicant qualified as one of the 12 best directors who was chosen to contribute one short film to the collaborative films venture 12.12.12. Hereto annexed and  Annexure “B” is a copy of the snap shot of the 50 shortlisted names of directors including the Applicant’s name on Respondent No.2’s website largeshortfilms.com.  The Applicant states that the collaborative film initiative 12.12.12’s exact submission deadline details were available on Respondent No.2’s website www.largeshortfilms.com Hereto annexed and  Annexure “C” is a true copy of details of the collaboration from the website of Respondent No.2.
  6. Thereafter the Applicant received a confirmation email congratulating the Applicant for being chosen one among the 12 directors from Shri Anurag Kashyap on behalf of Large Short Films. The said email also mentioned about the premier of 12.12.12 events and also made a mention that Shri Kashyap would be  meeting the Applicant. Hereto annexed and  Annexure “D” is a copy of the email dated 5th September from Shri Kashyap to the Applicant.
  7. It is submitted that the Applicant was overwhelmed and extremely enthusiastic to receive this opportunity and commenced the next stage of contributing the script before 24th September, 2012. The Applicant sent two scripts one for the movie “Sleep” and the other for the film “Ashes”. The Respondents accepted the script for the movie “Sleep” and gave the Applicant specific dates of delivery and deadlines, asking the Applicant to finally shoot the movie based on the said script. The emails dated _______ wherein the said scripts were submitted and thereafter accepted by the Respondents are produced as Annexure “E”, “E1” “E2”, collectively.
  1. The Respondents also issued a letter of participation to the Applicant dated 5th October, 2012 wherein the Respondents clearly stated that

we promise to pay you Rs.75,000/- immediately after you deliver your segment of the film. So you will be paid the full amount much before the release of the film.”

Further the Respondent No.1 and the Applicant entered into an Agreement dated 2nd October, 2012 stipulating the exact terms and conditions on which the Applicant was to shoot the film specifically for the Respondent’s collaboration. Hereto annexed and  Annexure “F” is a copy of the Agreement dated 2nd October 2012 and  and annexed as Annexure “G” is a copy of the email dated 5th October 2012 confirming the Applicant’s participation in the Respondent’s collaboration.

8.         On the basis of the Agreement entered into between parties and the confirmation by email dated 5th October 2012, the Applicant went ahead with the film shooting preparation and incurred substantial expenditure of approximately Rs.1 lakh on shooting the film. Hereto annexed and  Annexure “H” is a breakup of the production expenses incurred by the Applicant and  and annexed as Annexure ‘I” are details of hours spent at different sites by Applicant to shoot the film.  The Applicant states that she received an advance of Rs.30,000/- from the Respondents towards the making of the film “Sleep” and the same was given as an exception as the Respondent clearly stated in its email that they liked the Plaintiff’s work.

9.         The Applicant completed the shooting by 30th October, 2012 in accordance with the timeline provided by the Respondents and thereafter sent the footage and the final film to the Respondents on 3rd  November, 2012. As required by the Respondent, the Applicant also sent the invoice for the balance production expense along with the final film DVD on 3rd November, 2012. The final film “Sleep” had reached the Respondents within the deadline specified by them. The Applicant did not receive any communication from the Respondents till 12th November, 2012 which was the deadline for final edit of each film maker mentioned hereinabove. Thus the Applicant was under the bonafide and honest impression that her film was accepted and requested the Respondent to disburse the balance payment of Rs.45,000/- on 16th  November, 2012.  The Respondents confirmed on the same day that the payments are being processed. An extract of the email dated 16th November 2012 is produced herein below:

            “invoices just got signed today as signing authorities were travelling. Will take a week I am guessing. Will be presenting the invoices tomorrow to the accounts for processing.”

A copy of the email dated 3rd November 2012 along with final invoice dispatched on 3rd November 2012 and the correspondence on 16th November  2012 is produced as Annexure “J”.

  1. The Applicant was shocked and surprised to learn from the actor whom she had engaged to shoot the film “Sleep” that the Respondents are re-shooting some scenes of the movie.  The Applicant at this time sought a clarification from the Respondents as to the final status of the film and if the balance invoiced amount will be cleared as the Applicant had borrowed money to meet the expenses of the production of the film as contracted with the Respondents.
  2. The Applicant states that the Respondent sent an email asking the Applicant to re-shoot 6-7 scenes of the film  on 21st November 2012 night, this requirement of the Respondent at this stage of the collaboration wherein the script would substantially be modified came as a surprise to the Applicant.  The Applicant states that the script sent by the Applicant on 24 September, 2012 was approved by the Respondent’s on 3rd October, 2012 jointly. The Applicant had certain ideas and emotions about euthanasia which she clearly manifested in the script sent on 24 September and thereafter in the shootings. The revision suggested by the Respondents completely diluted the script shared by the Applicant which was already approved by the Respondents themselves. Further, this time for modification of the script and re-shooting the scenes was at an extremely short notice. The Applicant states that logistically the Respondent’s requirement for further shootings vide email sent on the night of 21st November, 2012 involved reserving a specific location which was at a great expense, recalling the actor and actresses who are not available for long periods and arranging the entire crew once again and getting the specific camera on which the Applicant would have to pay a large deposit and rent. The Applicant states that without receiving the amounts raised on the Respondents by her in her balance invoice issued on 3rd November, 2012, the Applicant was not in a position to shoot and deliver the 7 scenes as requested in a span of 3 days.
  3. The Applicant provided the Respondent with certain alternate ideas to link the short film “Sleep” with the larger collaborative venture. A copy of the emails in connection with these suggestions is annexed collectively as Annexure “ K”.
  4. On 20th November, 2012, the Applicant learnt that the Respondents are using the video “Sleep” but changing few important scenes which complete dilutes the script sent by the Applicant to the Respondent’s on 24th September 2012 and was deeply hurt to learn that her creative work was being tampered without even informing her that changes were being made or giving her sufficient time or resources to re-shoot the scenes herself. The Applicant immediately wrote to the Respondent opposing use of the scenes of the film shot by her. Hereto annexed Annexure “L” is a copy of the email dated 23rd November, 2012 addressed by the Applicant to the Respondent.
  5. The Applicant was shocked to receive an email dated 24th November 2012 from the Respondent severing all relations with the Applicant and stated that on 24th November 2012 night they have rejected the movie “Sleep”. An extract of the said email is as follows:

we will not use your story or film in this project…we will not be paying the balance production money to you. It is unfortunate this collaboration could not work out.”

  1. The Applicant states that this action of the Respondent has shocked the Applicant, caused mental agony and loss of dignity to the Applicant among her peers in the industry. The Applicant states that the Respondents have turned a complete blind eye to the Applicant’s plight both financially as well as professionally. The Applicant has taken a loan to invest in the making of the film and completed the film within the stipulated time line.  Hereto annexed and  Annexure “M” is a copy of the email dated 24th November, 2012 addressed by the Respondents to the Applicant. The Applicant has invoked the arbitration clause 29 of the Agreement and sent an invocation of arbitration dated 3rd December, 2012. A copy of the letter along with dispatch receipt is produced as Annexure “M1”.
  2. The Applicant states that the Respondents have individually and collectively displayed the images of the film “Sleep” in their promotional materials for the collaboration 12.12.12. Hereto annexed and  Annexure “N” is a  copy of the print out from the Respondents website still showing the Applicant’s film as a part of their promotional materials for the 12.12.12 collaborative film venture
  3. The Applicant is deeply agonized and shocked that the Respondents continue to use a few snapshots of the video “Sleep” which are still posted on the Respondent’s promotional websites. Further, the Applicant has reliably learnt that the Respondents are using the contents of the film “Sleep” to make another film by tampering with the original story line and thereby causing loss to the Applicant’s creative work and originality of the work which was sent to them for launch in the 12.12.12 collaboration.
  4. The Applicant states that these actions of the Respondents are a gross violation of the Applicant’s moral right, her rights to protect the integrity of her creative work and to acknowledge the real creator of the film in whom copyright in the said film vests. The Applicant is an upcoming film maker in South India and has received several international recognition for her previous films and is presently involved in several documentary productions taking a pro-human rights stance.
  5. The Applicant states that the actions of the Respondents are deliberate and done in a manner to cause professional harm and mental harassment to the Applicant as well as loss of reputation. The Applicant had since 2nd October, 2012 when her script was approved has spent more than 4 days in reviewing the location, 1 week in identifying the actors and actress and doing an audition in connection to the same another 1 week in developing the story board, and 3 days conducting the rehearsals. Thereafter on 25th and 26th October, 2012 she was engaged with shooting the film from 6 am in the morning to 8 pm at night. Post the shooting, the Applicant since 27th October, 2012 dedicated time to post production editing till 3rd November, 2012. In addition to the above the Applicant has borrowed money and incurred the expenses on the making of the film after being shortlisted as one of the 12 Directors invited to contribute to the Short Film collaboration. The Applicant states that the Respondent has sought to reject her film without any valid basis on mid night of 24 November, 2012 without any prior intimation or justifiable reasons.
  6. The Applicant submits that there is genuine belief that the Respondents are using shots from her film “Sleep” and adding scenes or deleting scenes without informing her. Further the Respondents are going on full swing to make these changes to the film “Sleep” without the Applicant’s prior permission and is going to release the same in their international premier and film release of 12.12.12 on 12 December, 2012 in Mumbai.
  7. It is submitted that the Respondents are not entitled to utilize the copyrightable material of the Applicant without her permission and without having made complete payment towards production cost for the same to the Applicant. The Applicant states that these actions of the Respondent clearly indicates that the Respondents are attempting to extract unlawful gain from the ground work and creative output of the Applicant. The alleged requirement for shooting further sequences is clearly an afterthought and has been communicated to the Applicant after having confirmed that she would receive payment. The aforesaid sequence of events clearly indicates that the Respondents were satisfied with the movie produced by the Applicant and that, upon being so satisfied, had agreed to make payments to her. Additionally, the deadline for final edits of each film was set at 12th November, 2012. The Respondents approached the Applicant for further shooting at a belated stage on or about 22nd November, 2012, i.e. much after November 12 and without any prior notice or intimation whatsoever, which clearly indicates that the Respondents have acted beyond the terms of the contract.  The Respondents have acted in an arbitrary, highhanded and illegal manner and have clearly attempted to resile from their contractual obligations. The Respondents ought not to be permitted to misuse the Applicant’s copyrighted works, especially without making payment to her. The Respondents have not acted in terms of the agreement and are consequently, not entitled to any rights and benefits thereunder.
  8. The Applicant has received an email dated November 24, 2012 that her movie ‘Sleep’ will not be utilized by the Respondents. However, the Respondents have, even thereafter, continued to use the parts of ‘Sleep’ in their website and promotional materials and initiatives. The Respondents ought to be restrained from making any use of the copyrighted works of the Applicant.
  9. The Applicant has a good prima facie case. The Applicant will be put to enormous prejudice if the interim reliefs as prayed for are not granted. Whereas the Respondents will not suffer similar prejudice or hardship. Balance of convenience is in favour of the Applicant. The reliefs prayed for herein are in aid of arbitration that will be initiated by the Applicant against the Respondents.
    1. It is submitted that no loss or inconvenience will be caused to the Respondents if an order of injunction is passed restraining the Respondent from using any part of the script or the videos already shot by the Applicant in her film “Sleep” till the adjudication of the dispute.
    2. The Applicant states that she has invoked arbitration under Clause 29 of the Agreement between the Respondent and the Applicant. Clause 29 of the Agreement is extracted as follows:

            “Any dispute or differences arising out of or pertaining to this Agreement shall be referred to a sole arbitrator appointed by the Producer. Such arbitration proceedings shall be conducted in English at Delhi and/or Mumbai.”

24.       It is submitted that there are no suits or proceedings pending between the Applicant and Respondent in respect of the film “Sleep” and its script and on the same cause of action before any other forum or courts. The Applicants state that the balance of convenience for the grant of interim reliefs lies heavily in favour of the Applicants.

25.       Cause of Action: The entire cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court. The Petitioner is residing in Mysore and have signed and sent the agreement dated 3 October, 2012 from Mysore by courier and was executed in couterparts. The Respondent have their Branch office in Bangalore. The agreement was terminated by an email received in Mysore. Further, the 12.12.12 collaborative project is to be released by way of an “online premier” where the movie will be uploaded in the website and all collaborating websites with Respondent and can be viewed by any one from any part of the country (including Karnataka). Thus this Court has the jurisdiction from restraining the Respondent from doing the uploading Applicant’s video in the website.  Section 2 (e) read with Section 42 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Hence, this Hon’ble Court has jurisdiction to entertain this Petition.

26.       Limitation: The Applicant states that there is no delay in filing the present Application and same is within the limitation period.

27.       Valuation: The Applicants have paid fixed Court fees of Rs.__00/-. In view of the above, the Applicants humbly pray that:

(a)       a temporary order of injuction restrainin Respondent No.1 and No.2 and its servants officers or agents from using in any manner whatsoever including altering, displaying, transferring, telecasting or uploading in any manner the script of the film “Sleep” and the video of the movie “Sleep” including all the footages and shots ancillary to main film.

(b)       restrain the Respondents collectively from interfering with or obstructing the use of the name of the Applicant with her film “Sleep”

(c)     ad interim exparte relief in terms of prayer (a). (d) For costs arising in connection to filing the present application.

(e)       for such further and other reliefs as the nature and circumstances of the case may require.

Date     / December, 2012                                                    Advocate for Applicant

                   V  E  R  I  F  I  C  A  T  I  O  N

           I, Shilpa Munikempana, the Applicant, abovenamed do hereby solemnly state and declare that what is stated in paragraphs Nos.  to    of the above petition is true to my own knowledge, and what is stated in paragraphs Nos.    to   is based on information, belief and legal advice, which I believe to be true.

Solemnly declared at Mysore,    )

This      day of December, 2012                    )

BEFORE ME,

ADVOCATE

Advocates for the Applicant

#Mumbai-Women cops were molested, admits R R Patil #Vaw


By , TNN | Dec 12, 2012, 02.22 AM IST

NAGPUR: Maharashtra home minister RR Patil has for the first time admitted that womenconstables were molested during the violence that broke out at Azad Maidan on August 11.

Patil rubbished claims that some of the women constables committed suicide while some others left service. He told the legislative council that no action would be initiated against senior officers who had allegedly tried to hush up the matter.

“There arises no question of their (women constables) morale being affected as a result of the actions of their seniors because no such thing (hushing up of the matter) ever happened. Even though molestation did take place, nobody has committed suicide or left the service as a result of the incident,” he said in a written reply to the legislative council during the Question Hour on Tuesday.

Patil’s statement is significant as no senior government authority had at the time presented a clear picture of what actually transpired during the rioting in which two persons died and 63 people were injured. Even though the molestation incident was officially denied at the onset, the incident did eventually find a mention in the charge sheet.

The police found it difficult to convince the traumatized victims to come forward, register complaints and identify the accused. The nine women constables had also identified four accused during an identification parade at Taloja jail in Thane. Taking note of the incident, the women’s commission, too, had conducted an inquiry and submitted its report to the government. So far, the report has not being made public by the home department.

Patil was replying to a question posed by Shiv Sena‘s Neelam Gorhe and Vinayak Raut, among several other members of the council. When was Patil asked what steps the government took to ensure proper care for the constables, he merely said that their senior staff had provided them counselling.

 

Shame in Bangalore : KG girls branded, boy’s face smashed #childabuse


TNN | Dec 12, 2012, 06.48 AM IST

BANGALORE: Corporal punishment reared its ugly head in two Bangalore schools on Tuesday. Both incidents are shocking: in the first, seven girls of a kindergarten in Whitefield were branded with a hot knife by an attendant . In the second, a teacher smashed a nine-year-old boy’s face against the ground, leaving him with two broken upper teeth and cuts on his lower lip in a school on Queen’s Road.

While the little girls were branded because they were bawling, the boy was subjected to inhuman punishment by his maths teacher as he had not done his homework.

The kindergarten girls were in the 3-5 age group. Sujatha, who worked as a helper with Building Blocks Daisy Nursery, had been asked to take care of the children since the teacher had left for home.

As the children bawled and kicked up a ruckus, the woman is believed to have tried to bring the class under control. After a while, a furious Sujatha rushed to the school kitchen, pulled out a knife, heated it on the stove, rushed back into the classroom and branded the seven children on their arms, police said.

Parents who came to the school to pick up their wards in the evening were outraged to find the children branded and in tears. They took the little ones to a police station and lodged a complaint before taking them to hospital.

When contacted, school authorities said they were shocked by the incident.

In the evening, the parents of nine-year-old Mohammed Huzaif filed a complaint with High Grounds police alleging that their son was subjected to corporal punishment by a teacher. The boy’s two upper front teeth broke and he suffered cuts on his lower lip, they said.

The boy is a Class III student of St Mary‘s Public School, Queen’s Road.

“My son left for school around 9.30am in an autorickshaw. When he returned , there was blood on his shirt and hands. When we questioned him, he told us his maths teacher had punished him,” said Mohammed Fayaz, an electrician and resident of Broadway Road.

UNTOLERABLE ACT

James Suresh Ambat, philanthropist and founder of the Building Blocks Daisy Nursery , where seven KG girls were branded with a hot knife, said: “I have not witnessed it myself . But this incident cannot be tolerated. As our policy, we don’t allow teachers to even touch the students. I don’t know how this kind of thing can taken place. I learnt about it at 4pm. The accused was suspended . In fact, her own child is studying in our school. We are with the parents.”

The school has 74 children on its rolls. It is run for the benefit of weaker sections of society on a charity basis, said Ambat . According to Ambat, most children studying in the kindergarden are from the Ambedkar Nagar slum in Whitefield.

Asked about the teacher’s absence that left children in the care of untrained personnel , Ambat said: “Even parents who are making such allegations were not present during the incident. We are looking into the issue.”

Police said helper Sujatha, who branded them, had been picked up. She is believed to have told police that her idea was only to discipline children.

WHAT THE LAW SAYS

” No child shall be subjected to physical punishment and mental harassment,” says clause 17, Chapter IV of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act.

RTE rules notified by state government task Karnataka State Commission for Protection of Child Rights (KSCPCR) with protecting the rights of children. KSCPCR has to monitor and investigate complaints of violation of child rights, and initiate action. The parents are expected to contact the institution head.

In case it continues, the parent can register a complaint with KSCPCR or block education officer.

 

#India- SC appalled by ‘lynching-like’ #deathpenalty


By , TNN | Dec 12, 2012,

SC appalled by 'lynching-like' death penalty
The Supreme Court on Tuesday expressed its deep distress and displeasure while censuring a “lynching-inspired” Tamil Nadu trial court for awarding death penalty to a person accused in a dacoity-cum-murder case as a deterrent to eliminate crime from society.

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Tuesday expressed its deep distress and displeasure while censuring a “lynching-inspired” Tamil Nadu trial court for awarding death penalty to a person accused in a dacoity-cum-murder case as a deterrent to eliminate crime from society.

“The trial judge, while showing special reasons, referred to laws prevailing in Arab countries like imposing sentence of ‘slashing’, ‘beheading’, taking organ for organ like ‘eye for eye’, ‘tooth for tooth’ and says these are developments of criminal jurisprudence,” said a bench of Justices K S Radhakrishnan and Dipak Misra, surprised by the special knowledge of the trial judge in criminal jurisprudence.

It was another matter that the apex court found no cogent evidence against the accused and acquitted him of all charges in the case, though he had already undergone eight years imprisonment and stayed under the shadow of gallows for some time till the Madras High Court commuted the sentence to life imprisonment.

What riled the apex court bench was the inspiration behind the trial court judge imposing capital punishment on Omprakash, who was allegedly part of a dacoit gang from northern India engaged in a series of crimes in Tamil Nadu. The trial judge had based its decision on his special knowledge about legal sanction by American courts to “lynching” and the “eye-for-eye” and “tooth-for-tooth” punishment institutionalized in some Arab countries.

The trial judge also said he was of the opinion that “the imposition of death sentence under Section 396 of Indian Penal Code is the only weapon in the hands of judiciary under the prevailing law to help eliminate crime”.

Worse, the trial court appeared to give vent to its parochialism by talking about gangs from Haryana travelling 2,000 km to commit crime in “our state (TN)” and justifying imposition of death penalty to “create fear among criminals who commit such crimes”.

First of all, the apex court put the record straight by reminding one and all that in Indian jurisprudence, life sentence was the norm and death sentence an exception. Justice Radhakrishnan, writing the judgment for the bench, said, “The sessions court has gone astray.”

He added, “We are surprised to note the ‘special reasons’ stated by the judge. We fail to see why we import the criminal jurisprudence of America or Arab countries to our legal system. The trial judge speaks of sentence like ‘lynching’ and described that it has attained legal form in America.”

Amazed by the ignorance of the sessions judge, the bench said, “Lynching means kill someone for an alleged offence without legal trial, especially by hanging. The trial judge failed to note that the constitutionality of death sentence came up for consideration before the US Supreme Court inWilliam Henry Furman vs State of Georgia, which involved three persons under death sentence. The court held death penalty to be cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the eighth and tenth amendments.”

The apex court said the trial judge’s inclination to bring in alleged system of lynching to India and to present is as a special reason was “unfortunate and shows lack of exposure to criminal laws of this country”.

“We are also concerned with the question whether the criminals have come from 20 km away or 2,000 km away. The trial judge says that they have come to ‘our state’, forgetting the fact that there is nothing like ‘our state’ or ‘your state’. Such parochial attitude shall not influence or sway judicial mind. The judge also further states, since the accused persons had come from a far away state, about 2,000 km to ‘our state’ for committing robbery and murder, death sentence should be imposed on them. The judge has adopted a very strange reasoning, needs fine tuning and proper training,” the bench said.

Taking exception to the trial judge’s logic that death sentence was the only weapon to eliminate crime, the bench of Justices Radhakrishnan and Misra said, “Judiciary has neither any weapon in its hand not uses it to eliminate crimes. Duty of the judge is to decide cases which come before him in accordance with the Constitution and laws, following the settled judicial precedent.”

It added, “A judge is also part of the society where he lives and also conscious of what is going on in the society. Judge has no weapon or sword. Judge’s greatest strength is the trust and confidence of the people, whom he serves. We may point out that clear reasoning and analysis are the basic requirements in a judicial decision.”

The bench asked the National Judicial Academy and State Judicial Academies to educate judicial officers in this regard.

dhananjay.mahapatra@timesgroup.com

 

Next Newer Entries

Archives

Kractivism-Gonaimate Videos

Protest to Arrest

Faking Democracy- Free Irom Sharmila Now

Faking Democracy- Repression Anti- Nuke activists

JAPA- MUSICAL ACTIVISM

Kamayaninumerouno – Youtube Channel

UID-UNIQUE ?

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 6,228 other followers

Top Rated

Blog Stats

  • 1,839,382 hits

Archives

December 2012
M T W T F S S
 12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930
31  
%d bloggers like this: