Delhi HC asks Amitabh Bachchan to appear personally if settlement in personality rights suit remains incomplete

New Delhi [India], October 10 (ANI): The Delhi High Court has asked actor Amitabh Bachchan to remain personally present at the next hearing if the settlement in his personality rights suit remains incomplete and he wishes to pursue his claims in the matter.
Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav passed the direction after the court was informed that an amicable settlement had been reached with some of the defendants through mediation, but the settlement agreement could not be formally signed due to logistical issues on Bachchan’s side.
The court granted time to Bachchan to complete the necessary formalities and place the formal settlement agreement on record. It listed the matter for further hearing on November 16.
The court said that in the event of non-settlement or incomplete settlement, Bachchan would have to remain personally present on the next date of hearing if he wished to pursue any of the claims or issues in the suit.
His personal presence would enable the court to exercise its powers under Order X Rule 2 read with Order V Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and Section 168 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, the order stated.
Bachchan had filed the suit seeking a permanent injunction to protect his personality rights. On November 25, 2022, the High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in his favour.
During the proceedings, the parties explored the possibility of an amicable resolution through mediation. According to the latest order, a settlement has been reached with some of the defendants, but the formal agreement is yet to be signed and placed before the court. The suit is pending before the High Court.
Bachchan was represented by advocates Dhruv Anand, Dhananjay Khanna and Bhavya Verma. Advocates Vinay Mohan Sharma, Tina Garg, M. K. Ghosh, Kushal Kumar and Rishabh Saxena appeared for certain defendants.
The suit arose from Bachchan’s allegations that several individuals and entities were using his celebrity status, name, voice and image without his permission to promote their own goods and services. He sought a permanent injunction restraining the unauthorised use of his personality and publicity rights for personal or commercial gain. (ANI)