- By Swati Singh
- Wed, 13 May 2026 02:07 PM (IST)
- Source:JND
The legal storm around Aditya Dhar’s Dhurandhar: The Revenge (2026) has ended for good with a dramatic climbdown in the Bombay High Court. In an order dated April 30, 2026, Justice Arif S. Doctor recorded that defendant Santosh Kumar had formally apologised for statements made during a March 30 press conference, where he allegedly referred to filmmaker Aditya Dhar as a 'chor' or 'thief' in connection with the script of Dhurandhar: The Revenge (2026).
The matter had reached the Bombay High Court after Dhar filed a suit seeking relief against what his legal team described as defamatory allegations. Senior advocate Dr. Birendra Saraf, briefed by DSK legal, appearing for Dhar, told the court that the filmmaker was willing to resolve the matter provided the defendant refrained from making 'per se defamatory statements'.
By the final hearing, the temperature had shifted completely. Counsel for Santosh Kumar tendered an unconditional apology before the court, while also undertaking that no such defamatory remarks would be made against Dhar in the future. The court then noted that Dhar, in light of the apology, did not wish to pursue damages further and accepted the apology, leading to the disposal of the suit.
Recommended For You
The legal storm around Aditya Dhar’s Dhurandhar: The Revenge (2026) has ended for good with a dramatic climbdown in the Bombay High Court. In an order dated April 30, 2026, Justice Arif S. Doctor recorded that defendant Santosh Kumar had formally apologised for statements made during a March 30 press conference, where he allegedly referred to filmmaker Aditya Dhar as a 'chor' or 'thief' in connection with the script of Dhurandhar: The Revenge (2026).
The matter had reached the Bombay High Court after Dhar filed a suit seeking relief against what his legal team described as defamatory allegations. Senior advocate Dr. Birendra Saraf, briefed by DSK legal, appearing for Dhar, told the court that the filmmaker was willing to resolve the matter provided the defendant refrained from making 'per se defamatory statements'.
By the final hearing, the temperature had shifted completely. Counsel for Santosh Kumar tendered an unconditional apology before the court, while also undertaking that no such defamatory remarks would be made against Dhar in the future. The court then noted that Dhar, in light of the apology, did not wish to pursue damages further and accepted the apology, leading to the disposal of the suit.




