High Court
PVR Ltd: HC nod to two subsidiaries’ merger with parent
MUMBAI: PVR Ltd has informed the Bombay Stock Exchange and the National Stock Exchange that the Delhi High Court, vide the formal Order issued on 4 January, 2017, has approved the Scheme of Amalgamation entailing merger of PVR Leisure Limited and Lettuce Entertain You Limited with PVR Limited effective from the appointed date of 1 April, 2015.
Justice Siddharth Mridul approved the scheme of amalgamation under which PVR Leisure Ltd — which operates in-mall entertainment, food and gaming joints, and Lettuce Entertain You Ltd — which is into the business of operating restaurants items — would merge with PVR Ltd, their parent company, PTI reported.
In its directive approving the merger, the HC has stated that all the property, rights and powers of the two transferor companies shall be transferred to the transferee company.
Under the scheme, the court also stated, “the entire paid-up equity and non-cumulative convertible preference share capital of petitioner company No.2 (PVR Leisure) is held by the transferee company directly, and the entire paid-up equity share capital of petitioner company No.1 (Lettuce) is held by transferee company through its wholly owned subsidiary PVR Leisure.”
Also Read:
Films Division shorts in cinema halls: Centre mulling revival
High Court
Bombay High Court questions AI celebrity deepfakes in Shilpa Shetty case
Justice questions legality of unconsented AI personas, platforms directed to respond.
MUMBAI: The Bombay High Court just put AI on the witness stand because when a chatbot starts chatting as Shilpa Shetty without asking, even the bench wants to know who gave permission. The Bombay High Court on Wednesday expressed serious concerns over the legality of artificial intelligence tools that simulate celebrity personalities without consent, during a personality rights suit filed by actor Shilpa Shetty.
Justice Sharmila Deshmukh, hearing the matter, questioned platforms that allow users to interact with AI-generated versions of actors without authorisation. The court noted that one accused AI chatbot website continued using Shetty’s personality without permission, prompting the judge to ask about the legal basis for such operations.
When the lawyer for the AI company argued that the system relied on algorithms and did not require celebrity consent, Justice Deshmukh challenged the platform’s right to recreate and make public a person’s identity in this manner. She observed that while users uploading photographs raised one set of issues, AI systems generating content based on recognised personalities posed distinct legal and ethical questions especially when the platform itself acknowledged the content was not real.
The court directed the platform to file a detailed response explaining its position.
The case involves Shetty seeking restrictions on more than 30 platforms including e-commerce websites and AI services accused of hosting or enabling misuse of her image and circulation of deepfake content.
The Bench also raised concerns about Youtube commentary videos discussing the ongoing proceedings involving Shetty and her husband, questioning whether unverified discussions could malign parties without journalistic checks.
Counsel for Google, Tenor and the AI entity informed the court that flagged infringing URLs had been removed. Shetty’s team disputed this, leading the court to allow her to file an application alleging non-compliance if links remained active.
Tenor objected to the broad injunction sought, arguing it functions as an intermediary GIF platform without capacity for proactive monitoring. The court directed Tenor to file an affidavit opposing the order.
E-commerce platforms including Amazon stated they had removed unauthorised listings using Shetty’s name and image, and would continue to act on specific notifications.
The court reiterated that directions for intermediaries would operate on a “take-down on notice” basis, requiring removal of infringing content once flagged.
As deepfakes blur the line between real and rendered, the Bombay High Court isn’t just hearing a case, it’s asking the bigger question: in the age of AI avatars, who really owns your face?
