* Major Legal Relief for Film Team

The mumbai City Civil court has refused to stay the release of the upcoming film “O Romeo.”

The decision comes as a major relief for producer-director vishal Bhardwaj and the film’s team.

The movie stars shahid kapoor and tripti dimri in lead roles.

The court order allows the film to be released as scheduled on february 13, 2026.

* Petition Filed by Gangster’s Daughter

The petition was filed by Sanobar Shaikh, thedaughter of late gangster Hussain Shaikh alias Hussain Ustra.

She claimed that the film’s story and characters closely resemble her father’s real life.

According to the plea, the filmmakers used her father’s name, identity, and personal details without permission.

She requested the court to stop the film’s release and order a prior screening.

* Allegations Against the Film

The petitioner argued that the teaser, trailer, and promotional material suggested a connection to her father’s life.

She said this could damage her father’s reputation and violate privacy rights.

The plea also sought interim relief and an urgent stay ahead of the release.

* Filmmakers’ Defense

The film’s legal team told the court that “O Romeo” is completely fictional.

They denied that the story is based on any real person.

They also informed the court that the film includes a clear disclaimer stating it is not inspired by real events or individuals.

The makers emphadata-sized that all required legal certifications had already been obtained.

* Court’s Key Observations

Judge H.C. Shende stated that no strong or compelling grounds were shown to justify a ban.

The court noted that the film already has legal approval and certification.

It also observed that the petitioner did not challenge this certification legally.

Legal questions about privacy and name rights after death were described as complex and evolving.

* Reasons for Dismissing the Plea

The court said the petition was filed very late, just before release.

It ruled that ordering a pre-release screening would amount to judicial censorship.

The judge added that any proven harm could be addressed later through compensation.

The petition was dismissed, with findings marked as preliminary and not final.

Disclaimer:

The information contained in this article is for general informational purposes only. While we strive to ensure accuracy, we make no warranties or representations of any kind, express or implied, about the completeness, accuracy, reliability, suitability, or availability of the content. Any reliance you place on the information is strictly at your own risk. The views, opinions, or claims expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any organization mentioned. We disclaim any liability for any loss or damage arising directly or indirectly from the use of this article.