There seems to be no end to cases against renowned Bollywood celebrity Salman Khan, the latest being the legal notice threatening a defamation case for 250 crore filed by ‘Veer’ Producer Vijay Galani.
Alleging ‘Mental Harassment and Agony,’ Galani said that he had hired the superstar with a joining fee of Rs 10 crore with the condition that Salman would be paid Rs 15 crore from overflow if the movie was a box office hit. Three months after the movie bombed at the box office, Galani supposedly received a notice from Salman asking for the 15 crores which was the agreed amount only if the film was well received, which it wasn’t.
In Galani’s own words, “…when the movie was a flop, Salman had sent me a letter asking for a copy of the ‘overflow’ agreement. Salman then asked me to ignore the letter saying that his new business manager had sent the letter. But again in April, he had sent me another letter stating that he was finding the 15 crore ‘overflow’ agreement unacceptable. We were working for two years and he had never mentioned about this problem. What made him suddenly have a problem with the agreement?”
Following this refusal to shell out the 15 crores, Salman filed a complaint with CINTAA (Cine And Tv Artistes Association) and then FWICE (Federation Of Western India Cine Association) who in turn issued a non-cooperation notice to the producer.
This in turn prompted an immediate legal notice from Galani to Salman where he categorically stated that the actor would be sued for 250 crores in a defamation suit. According to Galani, “That non-cooperation was not valid because it was only one organisation which had sent that letter, it comes in validation if two bodies issue the letter. So later I went to the court saying that these claims Salman is making are baseless and for 3-4 years no one from Salman’s side came from the hearing. A few months back I won the case and now I have filed a case against Salman for defamation and have sued him for Rs 250 crores now for all the mental agony and harassment I have gone through all these years.”
So far the court has ruled in favour of the producer.