The Bombay High Court has denied an interim injunction sought by Phantom Studios , allowing the production and promotion of the upcoming film Queen Forever to move forward. The decision, delivered by Justice Sandeep Marne on October 14, 2026 , marks a significant setback for the plaintiff, which had sought to halt JioStar India from releasing or marketing the movie while a larger copyright and breach of contract suit remains pending.

At the heart of the dispute is a claim for ₹250 crore in damages. Phantom Studios alleges that Queen Forever constitutes an unauthorized sequel to the 2014 critically acclaimed film Queen , directed by Vikas Bahl and starring Kangana Ranaut. According to the plaintiff, this new production represents a violation of a 2012 co-production agreement and a 2022 deed of novation , which purportedly establish the parties as joint and equal owners of all intellectual property and derivative rights associated with the original film. Despite these claims, the Court opted against imposing the requested temporary restraining order , meaning the defendant may continue its preparations for the film’s scheduled release later this year.

The Conflict Over Creative Ownership The legal friction stems from fundamentally opposing views on the nature of the new project. Phantom Studios argues that the characters, narrative structure, and thematic elements central to the 2014 film are inseparable components of an IP portfolio it co-owns with JioStar. By moving forward with a sequel without obtaining explicit written permission, Phantom contends that JioStar has circumvented contractual safeguards designed to protect the integrity and commercial interests of the original creators.

Conversely, JioStar India has maintained a stance of independence. In its submissions to the Bombay High Court , the defendant argued that Queen Forever is an original, standalone work that does not constitute a continuation of the 2014 narrative. Beyond the substantive arguments regarding copyright , the defendant highlighted significant procedural concerns. JioStar submitted evidence indicating that Phantom Studios had been aware of the project as early as April 2025 . Through a series of correspondences between the parties regarding the film’s development, JioStar argued that the plaintiff’s claim of urgency—a prerequisite for granting such drastic interim relief—was effectively undermined by its own delayed reaction.

Navigating Procedural Hurdles This recent ruling is not the first time the plaintiff has faced difficulty in securing judicial intervention. During an initial hearing in July 2026 , Justice Gauri Godse similarly declined to grant urgent ad-interim relief . At that time, Phantom Studios had sought to prevent JioStar from entering into third-party distribution deals, relying in part on a social media post by actor Kangana Ranaut, which indicated that principal photography for the film had concluded.

During those earlier proceedings, the Court raised pointed questions regarding the timeline and the necessity of immediate judicial intervention. Justice Gauri Godse indicated at the time that the request for an injunction would only be entertained after the defendant had a formal opportunity to file a comprehensive reply. This procedural caution eventually paved the way for the current impasse, where the Court has allowed the project to remain in active development while the case works its way through the litigation process. The refusal to issue an injunction now suggests that the Court has found the current evidentiary standard insufficient to warrant a freeze on the defendant’s commercial activities.

Assessing the Merits at Trial While the interim application has been dismissed, the overarching legal battle is far from settled. The substantive suit involves complex questions of contract law and copyright interpretation that will require a full trial to resolve. The Bombay High Court has yet to release a detailed, reasoned order explaining the specific logic behind Justice Marne’s decision; however, legal observers note that such refusals at the interim stage typically emphasize the high threshold for preventing a business entity from pursuing its commercial activities before the final adjudication of merits .

For now, the legal focus shifts to the upcoming trial. Phantom Studios continues to pursue its claim for ₹250 crore, asserting that the defendants have breached the terms of the 2012 agreement and the 2022 deed of novation . The trial will likely examine whether the characters and story beats in the new project are indeed derivative of the original property or if they represent sufficiently distinct creative choices that fall outside the scope of the co-ownership agreement.

As the industry monitors the situation, the immediate consequence of the October 14, 2026 , ruling is clear: the production of the film is permitted to continue without the threat of a court-mandated stay. The case of Phantom Studios v. JioStar India and Others remains on the docket, serving as a reminder of the intricate and often contentious nature of intellectual property rights within the film industry, particularly when historical co-production agreements meet contemporary adaptation strategies. The finality of the Court’s position on the merits remains the next major milestone in this dispute, with all eyes on how the bench will interpret the specific stipulations set forth in the underlying 2012 and 2022 documents once the trial begins in earnest. For the present, the litigation proceeds in the trial phase, with the parties expected to prepare for discovery and the substantive presentation of evidence.