Post your questions for Imelda Staunton

She’s acting royalty – literally, having played Queen Elizabeth II in The Crown – but what questions would you ask her? It is perhaps fitting that Imelda Staunton ended up playing Queen Elizabeth II in the last two series of The Crown, considering she has been acting royalty for years. Her film career has seen her voice champion egg-layer Bunty in 2000’s Chicken Run, followed by roles in Mike Leigh’s 2004 drama Vera Drake and the 2005 comedy Nanny McPhee. In 2014, she played the formidable Welsh miners’ strike campaigner Hefina in Pride . She also plays Lady Maud Bagshaw in the first two Downton Abbey films, and voices Paddington’s beloved Aunt Lucy in all three Paddington films. For a whole generation, however, she will always be Dolores Umbridge in two of the later Harry Potter films, where she somehow made a pink cardigan almost as frightening as Voldemort. On TV, she has cropped up in everything from Little Britain and Doctor Who to Psychoville, Brassic and a memorable guest appear...

Bombay High Court denies interim relief to Sholay director Ramesh Sippy in property dispute

The Bombay High Court rejected filmmaker Ramesh Sippy's request for a court-appointed receiver in an ongoing property dispute. The dispute centres on the inheritance of assets belonging to Sippy's late parents [Ramesh Sippy v. Sunhil Sippy & Ors.].

According to a report by Bar and Bench, the Sholay director had filed an interim plea seeking the appointment of a court receiver. This receiver would have taken temporary control of a flat and 27 cinematograph films, which Sippy claimed fell intestate (without a will) upon his parents' passing.

The filmmaker further contended that Sippy Films Pvt. Ltd. and its directors were illegally utilising these assets. However, Justice Manish Pitale, presiding over the case, found insufficient evidence from Sippy to support his concerns about the defendant disposing of the flat. Additionally, the court noted that the legal heirs of Sippy's siblings, along with the company itself, had been asserting ownership rights over the 27 films for a substantial period.

The judge further stated, "Apart from this, the stand taken (by Sippy) in the present suit, appears to be different from the assertions made in the earlier proceedings initiated by Sippy. Therefore, he has failed to make out a prima facie case in his favour.”

The veteran filmmaker’s request for a court receiver stemmed from a larger lawsuit seeking a declaration of his share in his deceased parents' estate among the surviving legal heirs. He claimed to be the sole surviving child.

Filed in 2023, the lawsuit argues that the properties of his parents should be distributed between him and the legal heirs of his siblings. Sippy seeks a one-fifth share of the estate, including a flat in south Mumbai, 500 shares of Sippy Films Pvt. Ltd., and rights to 27 films produced by the company.

Advocate Shanay Shah, representing Ramesh Sippy, was briefed by Bachubhai Munim & Co. Advocates Archit Jayakar, Pooja Yadav, and Parita Mashruwala, representing the Sippy Films company and directors, were briefed by Jayakar & Partners.

The case is ongoing, and further developments are expected.

Also Read: Vipul Shah THUNDERS at The Kerala Story press conference: “Sholay mein Gabbar Singh villain hai. Does that mean Ramesh Sippy is against the Singh community? Singham Again had a Hindu preist as a villain. Why didn’t you raise your voice then?”



from Latest Bollywood News | Hindi Movie News | Hindi Cinema News | Indian Movies | Films - Bollywood Hungama https://ift.tt/1SlD6xF
via IFTTT

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Miracle Club review – Maggie Smith can’t save this rocky road trip to Lourdes

‘I lost a friend of almost 40 years’: Nancy Meyers pays tribute to Diane Keaton

Malaika Arora scolds 16-year-old dancer for inappropriate gestures: “He is winking, giving flying kisses”