"We did not want to hamper her career by interfering unnecessarily"
|
Subhash Ghai. Click for bigger pic!
|
On Wednesday evening, Subhash Ghai called up Rediff On The NeT, giving his version of the ugly controversy involving his Pardes protege Mahima Chaudhary and his production company, Mukta Arts. Soon after, he faxed us a statement, listing the charges against Mahima. This is what he had to say:
We would like to clarify some misgivings or misunderstandings regarding the facts of the case against Ms Mahima Chaudhary who decided to dishonour the terms of the contract signed by her before the making of Pardes and (who refused) to pay the dues to our trust instituted for the welfare of the staff and technicians of Mukta Arts. She is making all kinds of remarks to confuse the press and people. There was no discussion held between Mahima and us to abandon the said contract with her.
The court's order on Monday:
As far as the court order delivered on Monday is concerned, it may be clarified that the court has not rejected our suit for the performance of the contract. On the contrary, it admitted the same for breach of contract. Only ad-interim relief prayed for was not granted by the court looking into the financial involvement of the organisers of the stage shows and on the point of lack of urgency. The case is on and we are sure that we will get full justice in due course.
Her feature film assignments:
|
Mahima Chaudhary. Click for bigger pic!
|
We never interfered in her assignments for feature films in spite of the fact that our contract states that she needs our express consent before signing, but we did not want to hamper her career by interfering unnecessarily. We only interfered and sent her notice about her acting as a model, an anchor in television shows and a performer in stage shows for which she is supposed to inform us and ask the organisers to deal with us directly to accept or reject the proposal.
The main concern in this clause is that she is supposed to get 65 per cent of the earnings through our company and/or its nominees like Mukta Arts Welfare Trust, which is formed for the welfare of our staff and technicians who will retain 35 per cent for their charitable causes. She didn't care to inform us about her accepting a television show and the stage shows to be held abroad in April and May 1998. She was supposed to inform the organisers also about the existing agreement between us which she didn't.
On filing a suit in court:
When it was brought to our notice on March 1, our staff tried to contact her and confirm about the shows or about any arrangement like this. She refused to send us any copy of her agreement for the shows and thereafter refused to attend our phone calls and to meet us personally. We sent her many messages to contact and talk to Mr Ghai if she has any problem, but she was adamant not to talk and respond even to Mr Ghai.
Finally we contacted Mr Ali Morani who confirmed about her stage shows. Mr Ali also tried his best to convince Mahima to talk to Mr Subhash Ghai to settle the matter for ever. But she refused. Then we sent a letter in form of notice on 24th March which remained unreplied.
|
A still from Pardes. Click for bigger pic!
|
Later, our lawyer sent a telegraphic letter to her on 29th March, 1998 to which she replied through a lawyer and applied for a caveat in the high court on 31st March, 1998. We still waited till 4th April before going to court, but all the time she refused to meet us. It was only on 4th April evening that she called us when she came to know that a case has been filed but it was too late for us.
She had insulted all our members of staff whenever they tried to contact her. It was not a question of money value but of respect value for us, particularly for Mr Ghai who took a big risk of making a Rs 9 crore (Rs 90 million) movie with her in a leading role and slogged for 15 months to build her as a star.
About Taal:
Our contract dated 19.02.96 states that she will work in any of the three forthcoming movies to be made during the period of five years as and when ever we require her for the future films and that she will give us first preference.
But it does not bind her not to sign outside producers's movies. This kind of contract was made earlier with Madhuri Dixit and Manisha Koirala also. Madhuri honoured the contract with full dignity although we did not cast her in Saudagar after Ram Lakhan. She worked for Suneha Arts for Prem Deewane as per the contract and honoured everything, whatever she committed. She was graceful enough to do the Lux ad for the Mukta Arts Welfare Trust.
After that we never asked her to do anything for us and never interfered in any of her business. We cast her in Khalnayak also.
We have been enjoying a great relationship with our artists since the last 22 years and they have been paying great respect to Mukta Arts whether they are working in our films or not. Jackie Shroff, Dilip Kumar, Anil Kapoor, Sanjay Dutt, Anupam Kher, Madhuri Dixit, Manisha Koirala, Amrish Puri, Saroj Khan etc are still part of our company and we are there for them always.
But if a young girl like Mahima, after her first success and getting acclaim and awards, wishes to turn her face and denies to pay the dues to our technicians and staff and refuses to express her gratitude towards Mukta Arts and Subhash Ghai, we can only say "God bless her". She has a long way to go.
Executive Director
Mukta Arts Pvt Ltd
Bonds and labour
|