New Delhi, December 19, 2025 - The courtroom at the Delhi High Court felt unusually tense this morning as arguments unfolded in Bata India Ltd. v. Subhash Kapoor & Ors., a defamation suit rooted in the controversial Jolly LLB 2 trailer. Bata alleges that their brand was portrayed as “cheap footwear,” harming reputation and consumer perception.
The case reached a crucial point when Defendant No. 5 - a well-known Bollywood actor - sought removal from the list of parties, arguing he played no role in scripting or producing the allegedly defamatory content. The court, however, was not convinced.
Background
The suit began after the film’s trailer featured a monologue linking “cheap shoes” to the Bata name, allegedly suggesting persons from humble backgrounds wear their products. The reference was later replaced with the Hindi word “phata” following an injunction.
Read also:- Chandni Chowk Shop Sealing Row: MCD Orders Stayed Over Faulty Notices, Conflicting Grounds, Tribunal Finds
Bata claims the actor benefited as a brand ambassador of a rival footwear company, arguing that reputation damage to Bata could commercially advantage the competing brand. The actor countered that he neither authored the dialogue nor conceptualized the trailer, saying he was merely performing a written role.
Arguments in Court
The defendant’s counsel insisted the actor had nothing to do with the monologue, maintaining that,
“He didn’t write it, didn’t speak it, and wasn’t responsible for editing or promotional calls.”
They further stated that a profit-share remuneration model doesn’t magically convert an actor into a producer.
But Bata’s side argued the opposite that intent and involvement could be inferred. The plaintiff pointed out that the actor has publicly claimed he “produces 90% of films he stars in” and tweeted the trailer, allegedly amplifying defamatory material to millions of followers. One lawyer remarked:
“Justice Dr. Ajay Gulati observed, ‘A tweet sharing potentially defamatory content can independently attract liability. Retweeting is publication.’”
The judge also noted that the brand reference was deliberate, especially since the actor wasn’t even shown wearing Bata footwear in the scene. The court hinted that the rival-brand endorsement aspect strengthened the case for trial rather than dismissal.
Court’s Observations
The Joint Registrar acknowledged that the actor did not personally utter the offending dialogue, but emphasized that this alone does not absolve him of legal scrutiny.
“For a triable issue, allegation of conspiracy appears sufficient,” the court remarked, noting that questions about production, profit shares, and the trailer tweet must be tested through evidence.
The court also held that tweeting the trailer could count as an “independent act of dissemination,” thus giving Bata grounds to pursue the claim at trial. The judge dismissed the defense that the actor’s slap in the scene was unrelated to the Bata remark, saying motive and impact are assessment matters for evidence.
Decision
Concluding the hearing, the court held the actor to be a necessary party for “fair adjudication” of the defamation suit. Accordingly, the application requesting deletion from the case was rejected, and the matter will proceed to trial with the actor remaining on record.
The order ends with:
“The application is declined. IA stands disposed of.”
Case Title: Bata India Ltd. v. Subhash Kapoor & Others
Case Number: CS (COMM) 56/2017
Date of Order: 19 December 2025
