2 weeks ago
10 ARTICLE AD
Days after the Zeenat Aman-led OTT debut series Showstopper made the news owing to financial crunch rumours, its director, Manish Harishankar and the production house, MH Films, filed a police complaint against actress Digangana Suryavanshi for defrauding the team. The team accused the actress of cheating and criminal breach of trust under IPC Section 420 and Section 406 asserting that she falsely claimed to secure Akshay Kumar and his company as presenters for the project.
In their police complaint, they stated that Digangana had asked the makers for an MOU to strike a conversation to bring Kumar on board as the presenter. In return, Suryavanshi would be paid Rs 75 lakh and a Mercedes G Class car, and Kumar Rs 6 crore. Days later, Digangana has broken her silence and released a statement. The actress’ legal team has also issued a lengthy statement. Read on.
Digangana Suryavanshi on Manish Harishankar’s accusations
A while ago, Digangana released a statement regarding the accusations made against her by Showstopper maker, Manish Harishankar. Speaking up about the issue, the ‘Ek Veer Ki Ardaas…Veera’ actress said, “Manish’s narrative is his twisted imagination, it’s all untrue. A cheap publicity stunt of simply dragging names, clearly he’s trying to find a bakra so he can bail out from not being able to sell the show even after more than two years. I don’t want to waste any more time explaining further, I’ve already wasted too much time trying to help him”.
Digangana’s lawyer issue a firm statement
Not only the actress, but her legal team also issued a firm statement. Digangana Suryavanshi’s lawyer, Rajendra Mishra, said in their statement, “We would like to officially quote that all the allegations made against our client Digangana are absolutely baseless and an outcome of someone’s criminal intention and trying to cover up their own shortcomings. Our client has known Manish for 7 years and is an actress on his series “showstopper”, when Manish was in a situation where he clearly couldn’t help himself , he asked for help from our client and proposed a business deal where his team had executed an MOU between him and our client. Strangely, Manish Harishankar doesn’t understand that extortion doesn’t happen in legal binding; it’s called business. Under the terms of the MOU. Our client had gotten a presenter on board, and honoured her side of the commitment.”
Manish was asked to make changes by the presenter
Their statement further read, “Our client got the episodes viewed by the presenter, the episodes weren’t liked by the presenter but then Manish proposed to our client that he’ll make all creative changes to presenters satisfaction. This is when our client further requested the presenter and after re-editing the show (for which our client invested 4 days at the edit suit) the presenter watched the episodes and agreed to present the show, although a lot of changes were still required, but Manish promised to fix them after their agreement.”
Digangana Suryavanshi’s lawyer’s statement further read, “Manish was given a rough draft contract as confirmation of the deal, the draft had to undergo many changes which were already informed to Manish. Manish committed to a payment timeline and failed the timelines thrice ! Our client along the way realised that Manish had issues with the money to honour the deal, his financier had asked him to provide NOC or contracts of all the other financiers if he needed any more funding, and Manish could not provide that to his financier which is why no money was released and the deal was called off”.”
Lawyer on Digangana being paid for the presenter deal & iPad
In their statement, Digangana’s lawyers added, “Our client hasn’t taken a single penny from Manish for the presenter deal. He claimed that our client had only travelled with his editor, again false, our client had travelled with her mother and Manish’s editor. The episodes were viewed in the presence of our client, her mom, the presenter and the presenter’s team. Any claims otherwise are simply made with the intention to malign our client’s reputation.”
They added that Manish Harishankar knows exactly where the iPad with all the episodes is – which is “not with our client”. The statement read, “Our client received the iPad back from the team, and messaged Manish to get it picked. Manish has still not gotten it picked, we wonder why so much drama. He claims that our client did not establish any contact with the presenter – it’s untrue as the presenter’s team had visited Manish’s office, and his editor had met with the presenter. When Manish could not arrange the money required for the execution of the deal, he asked to meet the presenter out of the blue and our client realised he’s only making false claims and it would be embarrassing to introduce him knowing that the deal was falling flat”
Digangana Suryavanshi’s lawyers: Manish Harishankar has tarnished her reputation
The lengthy statement further read, “Manish has spread false quotes in the name of our client, tarnished her reputation, made false claims in the media, leaked a business deal proposal, signed a false MOU with a commitment of having money when there was none, cheated by not returning/cancelling the MOU he has, didn’t pay our client’s actors fee yet while he falsely claims that he has, in fact, our client’s staff hasn’t been paid, defamed our client, leaked out clients home address, trapped her in a situation voluntarily and much more.”
The actress’ legal team added, “We’ve filed a police complaint against him under IPC sections 509, 406, 420, 499, 500, 503, 506, 63, 199, 211. We have also sent him a defamation notice.
Unlike Manish , we have evidence of all transparent communication. Manish is clearly at fault and has the audacity to spread just false information”.
The IPCs under which the police complaint has been filed are – 509 – intending to insult the modesty of any women; 406 – criminal breach of trust; 420 – cheating and dishonesty; 499 – criminal defamation; 500 – criminal defamation punishment; 503 – criminal intimidation, 506 – criminal intimidation punishment; 63 – giving false information; 199 – false statements; 211 – to make false charge of offence made with intent to injure.
About Showstopper
The OTT show, directed by Manish Harishankar, stars Zeenat Aman in the lead. The series – which is currently surrounded by controversies, is still to announce its release date.
Stay tuned to Bollywood Bubble for more news and updates from the entertainment world.
