High Court
Sapphire Media wins BIG 92.7 FM; gets favourable order from NCLAT
MUMBAI: It’s a big – actually Big 92.7 FM – win for Haryana-outdoor firm and Indian Daily TV channel owner Sapphire Media. It has got a favorable order from the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) for it to acquire the Reliance Broadcast Network run radio network Big FM 92.7.
The principal bench of the NCLAT, Delhi on Monday dismissed the plea filed by Radio Mirchi, Orange FM and others against the NCLT judgement which approved the resolution plan of Sapphire Media for Big 92.7 FM.
The NCLAT Bench comprising chairperson justice Ashok Bhushan and (technical) member Barun Mitra in its order today said that “in view of the foregoing discussions and conclusions, we do not find any ground to interfere in the order of NCLT dated 06.05.2024 impugned in the above appeals. In result, all the appeals are dismissed.”
Earlier, the NCLT bench comprising technical member Madhu Sinha and judicial member Reeta Kohli had approved the resolution plan submitted by Sapphire Media in its order dated 6 May 2024. As per the plan, Sapphire Media would pay Rs 261 crore to secured and operational creditors against the total claims of Rs 947.5 crore.
The resolution professional subsequently filed an application with NCLT Mumbai seeking approval of Sapphire Media’s resolution plan.
Big FM 92.7 FM , owned by Reliance Broadcast Network, has been going through the insolvency process since February 2023.. It is the country’s largest radio network with 58 stations and a reach of over 1,200 towns and 50,000+ villages will reinforce Sapphire Media’s aggressive expansions plans in the media space.
Sapphire Media is promoted by Aditya Vashistha and Kaithal-based businessman Sahil Mangla. Sapphire media runs a national Hindi news channel in name of India Daily and is one of the biggest outdoor advertising companies in India.
High Court
Bombay HC likely to protect Kartik Aaryan’s personality rights
Actor seeks Rs 15 crore damages over AI misuse, deepfakes and merch
MUMBAI: In an age where faces can be faked and voices cloned, even stardom needs legal armour. The Bombay High Court has indicated it will pass an order safeguarding the personality and publicity rights of Bollywood actor Kartik Aaryan, following allegations of widespread digital misuse of his identity.
The matter, heard by Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh, centres on a plea filed by Aaryan seeking a broad John Doe injunction against 16 defendants, including e-commerce platforms, social media intermediaries and unidentified entities. The court noted the concerns raised and said appropriate orders would be issued.
At the heart of the case lies the growing threat of artificial intelligence-driven impersonation. Aaryan’s petition flags multiple instances of deepfake content circulating across platforms such as YouTube and Instagram, where his likeness has allegedly been used to create fabricated videos, including false romantic link-ups and objectionable scenarios designed to drive engagement.
In one particularly alarming example, the actor’s legal filing cites AI-generated visuals that falsely associate him with controversial global figures, including Jeffrey Epstein. The plea argues that such content not only misleads audiences but also causes serious reputational damage.
The concerns extend beyond content to commerce. The suit alleges that unauthorised merchandise bearing Aaryan’s name and image is being sold across platforms such as Amazon, Flipkart and Redbubble, without his consent. Additionally, the actor has raised red flags over AI-powered chatbots that mimic his voice and simulate conversations, warning of potential misuse in fraudulent activities.
Aaryan’s filing underscores that he is the registered proprietor of the trademark “Kartik Aaryan”, with his name, voice and likeness carrying significant commercial value. The unauthorised use of these attributes, the plea states, leads to “immediate and irreparable harm” to his goodwill.
Seeking both preventive and punitive relief, the actor has requested a permanent injunction restraining entities from exploiting his identity in any form be it name, voice, signature or distinctive dialogue style. He has also sought damages amounting to Rs 15 crore for alleged commercial misappropriation and reputational loss.
The case highlights a larger legal and cultural moment, where the lines between reality and replication are increasingly blurred. As AI tools become more accessible, courts are now being called upon to define the boundaries of identity in the digital age, where a face may be famous, but control over it is no longer guaranteed.
