Kochhar & Co has sent a legal notice to the makers of Bollywood sequel The State vs Jolly LLB 2 on behalf of footwear empire Bata, asking them to remove and apologise for an allegedly disparaging trailer of the movie in which the reputation of Bata as a brand is allegedly damaged.

A scene between the film’s protagonists Annu Kapoor and Akshay Kumar, has Kapoor saying the following before he gets slapped by Kumar:

Varna Kya….BATA ka joota pehan kar, tuchhi si terricot ki shirt pehan kar, saala humse zabaan lada rahe hain

That is accompanied by the following, non-branded English subtitle:

Who are you to argue with me in your cheap shoes and shabby clothes.

The Jolly LLB franchise about a happy-go-lucky underdog lawyer ironically has a great track record in attracting legal notices. The first movie in 2013 was served with three legal notices for allegedly ridiculing Meerut law college, where the fictional protagonist Jolly had earned his LLB spurs.

Bata, through Kochhar partner Neeraj Grover, asserted in its petition that this scene, which is part of the trailer being watched widely over the internet and in cinemas, showed the brand BATA in “extremely bad taste”.

The petition added that:

the dialogue is intended to convey that the brand BATA is adorned only by lower strata of society and one should feel humiliated if one wears BATA footwear, in fact the expression and reaction to such a dialogue by Akshay Kumar in the trailer shows that even the person to whom such a statement is hurled took the same extremely negatively and slapped Annu Kapoor in Open Court as if he has been severely abused in the dialogue or he has been hurled with some derogatory remarks.

Bata has called this a deliberate effort to tarnish the brand image of Bata, “perhaps at the instance of some competitors of [Bata] whose products are promoted by Mr Akshay Kumar as a brand ambassador”.

In the notice sent to Fox Star Studios India, executive producer Naren Kumar, directors Deepak Jacob, Amit Shah and Subhash Kapoor, and actors Kapoor and Kumar, Bata has pointed out that established in 1931, it is the largest retail network of footwear across India with 1200 stores, owns many popular footwear brands such as Marie Claire, Hush Puppies, Scholls and North Star among others, and enjoys an “impeccable reputation amongst all classes of the Indian public which include a common middle class men, those from the higher strata and even the elitist of the elite lot of the Indian society”.

Bata has asked for a personal apology as well as an apology published in mainstream national newspapers, pulling down of the allegedly derogatory trailer and to publish a prominent apology on all versions of its trailer, for damaging the reputation of Bata.

Kochhar has sent a copy of the notice to PVR, Satyam Cineplexes and Youtube.

Read Bata Jolly LLB 2 petition (PDF)

Click to show 12 comments
at your own risk
(alt+shift+c)
By reading the comments you agree that they are the (often anonymous) personal views and opinions of readers, which may be biased and unreliable, and for which Legally India therefore has no liability. If you believe a comment is inappropriate, please click 'Report to LI' below the comment and we will review it as soon as practicable.
refresh Filter out low-rated comments. Show all comments. Sort chronologically
1
Like +12 Object -1 Kata Bata 22 Dec 16, 19:09  interesting
What shocking drafting, this notice! Leave alone the merits, it even starts with a grammatical error. The quality of notice is more damaging to the brand reputation of Bata than pretty much ANYTHING any movie can do.
Reply Report to LI
1.1
Show?
Like +2 Object -1 Shameerpet Baba 23 Dec 16, 15:44
Please share some drafting tips
Reply Report to LI
2
Like +9 Object -0 Subjudice 22 Dec 16, 19:15  interesting
Can we please understand the legal terms 'petition' and 'notice' better and not use it interchangeably? Thanks.
Reply Report to LI
3
Show?
Like +1 Object -0 Shikari 23 Dec 16, 14:17
Dismal drafting.
Reply Report to LI
4
Like +5 Object -0 Guest 24 Dec 16, 11:01  interesting
If I call Kocchar a "shabby" firm for drafting this, can I be sued?
Reply Report to LI
5
Show?
Like +3 Object -0 kya re 24 Dec 16, 14:23
I find the quality of drafting is just fine. It is easy to comment on someone else's work when you are anonymous.
Reply Report to LI
6
Show?
Like +0 Object -0 Mauni Baba 24 Dec 16, 15:29
Not sure about the damage which the dialogue did to brand BATA, but this notice has surely not done any good to reputation of Kochhar & Co. and the Partner under whose signature it has been issued.
Reply Report to LI
7
Show?
Like +0 Object -1 Guest 25 Dec 16, 06:35
Please report this in public interest. Why does the Madras HC keep giving such shocking judgements?

http://www.dailyo.in/variety/madras-high-court-judgement-eloping-regressive-kali-yuga-smoking-drinking-sexist/story/1/14699.html
Reply Report to LI
8
Show?
Like +0 Object -0 Yikes! 26 Dec 16, 11:18
What shoddy drafting! So many grammatical errors, including use of 'our' instead of 'are'. Maybe Mr. Grover ought to have read the notice once before signing off on it. This reflects very badly on Kochhar. Hope, one of their clients gifts them a Wren & Martin and a dictionary for their library
Reply Report to LI
9
Show?
Like +2 Object -2 Grammar check 26 Dec 16, 11:47
The shared Legal Notice contains the following grammatical errors -

1. In the Introduction - the company is registered under Companies Act, 1956 or 2013 not 1913.
2. In para 7, ....continues to enjoy 'an' impeccable reputation.....not continues to enjoy 'and' impeccable reputation.
3.In para 7, ...which 'includes' common middle class men, not "which include a common middle class men".
4. In Para 7, "..there would hardly 'be' any indian..." and not "..there would hardly any indian.."
5. In para 10, "Further while the dialogue played", instead of Further the while the dialogue played.
6. In para 16, "That apart from the criminal offence of defamation", not Apart from the criminal offence of the defamation.
7. In para 18, "noticee no. 1 & 4" and not "notice no. 1 & 4".
Reply Report to LI
9.1
Like +4 Object -0 Name and Alias 26 Dec 16, 13:51
Err... Bata was incorporated in 1931 hence it would have been incorporated under the then extant Companies Act, which happens to be the Companies Act, 1913. It's all very well to point out mistakes, but you should do a bit of homework. This took me about a minute to figure out through Google.
Reply Report to LI
9.2
Show?
Like +0 Object -1 Abacus 26 Dec 16, 20:35
You could count only 7 errors? That's pretty low.
Reply Report to LI

refreshSort chronologically Filter out low-rated comments. Show all comments.