The Goa Bench of Bombay High Court has allowed the release of film based on retired Customs Officer Costao Fernandes’s Life on the grounds that the producers have purchased the rights from Costao to make the film.
The bench of Justice Valmiki Menezes has upheld the observation of the trial court in which it was held that the injunction sought was on the assumption that the film would be defamatory of the Plaintiff, Churchill Braz Alemao or his family.
The plaintiff, Churchill Braz Alemao has sought an order of restraint on the assumption that the film which is yet to be released, would be defamatory of the plaintiff and of his deceased brother. The court considered that it would not grant injunctive relief before the fictional work is viewed and properly examined in its entirety.
The trial court recorded a finding that the plaintiff has not been able to bring on record any concrete material which suggests that the ilm contains defamatory material and portrays him or his deceased brother or their family in poor light. It concludes that the entire case is based on news reports circulated in the social media which are neither authored by the defendants or published at their behest.
After examining the articles, the Trial Court has concluded that the news articles are based upon either an anonymous source or on the own initiative of the concerned reporter. It also concludes that the reports are not based on interviews of the defendants about the film nor the news items quote the defendants or actors cast in the film as the source of information for the publication.
The Trial Court held that no prima facie case was made out by the plaintiff. It further held that since the ilm is yet to be released, and since the defamation has not even happened, there would be no irreparable loss or injury occasioned to the plaintiff. he Trial Court then held that the defendants have invested nearly Rs.20 crores in the making of the ilm. he news articles which form the basis for filing a suit were published in October and December 2023, and the suit was filed on 11.03.2024. It considered this delay and held that substantial prejudice would be caused to the defendants if a temporary injunction was granted against them and on this count, held that the balance of convenience rests with the defendants.
Churchill Braz Alemao contended that the non-inclusion and portrayal in the ilm of the findings rendered by this Court of the innocence of the plaintiff and his deceased brother, as also the fact that the plaintiff and his other brothers were discharged in a criminal case, where the Court records that no gold was found, would result in the public carrying an impression that the plaintiff was a smuggler or indulged in such an activity. The non-inclusion of the facts/findings contained in these judgments, in the narrative of the ilm would result in defamation of the plaintiff.
The court while dismissing the appeal held that the claim is that the ilm is a work purely of fiction and dramatizing the incident to give it a certain entertainment value for viewers. There are enough safeguards also placed in the form of a disclaimer. Nothing is shown on record to draw any likeness of any character in the ilm, which is not yet released, or for the Plaintiff to believe from any material that the character has a likeness similar to the Plaintiff or any members of his family.
Case Details
Case Title: Mr. Churchill Braz Alemao Versus Bhanushali Studios Ltd.
Case No.: Appeal From Order No. 28 Of 2024
Date: 30/04/2025
Counsel For Appellant: Subhodh Kantak, Senior Advocate
Counsel For Respondent: V. Dhond, Senior Advocate
