The legal fight inside the Cine and TV Artistes’ Association is not a simple story of one faction beating another. The Bombay High Court’s October 22 order did not declare Upasana Singh the winner of a disputed election. It issued a contempt show-cause notice to the rival faction led by Poonam Dhillon and Padmini Kolhapure, restrained that faction from acting on its own October 20 poll results, and left the underlying question of who controls CINTAA to be argued another day.
That distinction matters because Upasana and treasurer Nagma Morarji held a press conference in Mumbai on October 28 and framed the court developments as a clean vindication. “If we are truthful, we ought to win, and we have won,” Upasana said, invoking Satyameva Jayate. The court record is more procedural than that quote suggests, but the procedural wins are real, and they have given Upasana’s committee physical control of the association’s office since October 27.
What the High Court Actually Did
The sequence runs from a September 12 election to an October 20 counter-election. Upasana topped the September 12 poll conducted under the supervision of the Federation of Western India Cine Employees, securing 360 votes against Sahila Chadha’s 357. The Dhillon-Kolhapure faction challenged that process and held its own election on October 20, where Kolhapure emerged with 604 votes.
FWICE then filed a contempt petition. It argued that the October 20 poll violated the High Court’s September 11 and October 19 directions, which had asked parties to refrain from steps that could affect the court’s oversight while a motion remained pending. Justice Aarti Sathe found a prima facie case of wilful disobedience and breach of an undertaking, issued notice under Rule 9(1) of the Contempt of Courts (Bombay High Court) Rules, 1994, and directed the faction not to give effect to the October 20 results.
The matter returns to the Bombay High Court on November 18, when the Dhillon-Kolhapure faction must explain why contempt proceedings should not be initiated. That hearing is the next real fork in the dispute. Upasana’s claim of victory rests on an interim order, not a final judgment on the validity of either election.
The Dindoshi Court Layer
Upasana also cited the Dindoshi Court, which she said ruled in her faction’s favour. The City Civil Court at Dindoshi rejected the rival faction’s plea for interim relief on October 21, a day before the High Court contempt notice. CINTAA’s lawyer Suvigya Vidyarthi, representing the Dhillon faction, has disputed the broader reading of that order. He told the Times of India that no court had ruled CINTAA could not conduct its own elections, and that the question of whether FWICE had authority to run a rival poll would be decided only after a full trial.
That legal caveat does not erase the practical reality. Upasana’s committee took charge on October 27 with a hawan, and she says the priority now is member welfare and recovering association funds.
The Money Allegation Behind the Fight
The governance dispute is not only about election paperwork. Upasana alleged at the press conference that fixed deposits worth ₹73 lakh were broken and transferred to an account at Punjab National Bank, after four other banks declined to allow free operation of the accounts. She also claimed CINTAA’s constitutional requirement that 20 per cent of funds be spent on artists’ welfare had been ignored, and that artists struggling with school fees and medical bills were turned away while money went to press conferences.
Nagma framed the financial question as an institutional one. “The funds, assets, and records that have accumulated here since 1958 belong solely and exclusively to the association and its artists,” she said. “They are not anyone’s personal property”. The Dhillon-Kolhapure faction has not responded to these specific allegations in the court record cited here. The contempt hearing on November 18 will not resolve the money claims; it will address whether the October 20 election breached court directions.
What “Truthful” Means in a Court File
Upasana’s soundbite is effective, but the legal outcome she is claiming depends on a narrower point: the rival faction went ahead with an election after the High Court had asked for restraint. That is why the contempt notice, not a declaration of presidency, is the centre of the story. If the High Court presses the contempt case on November 18, the Dhillon-Kolhapure faction faces an explanation burden. If the court accepts its response, the fight over election authority returns to the City Civil Court for a fuller trial.
For now, Upasana controls the office and the narrative. Nagma controls the treasurer’s argument that the association’s assets belong to the institution, not to any faction. The November 18 hearing will test whether the court sees the October 20 poll as a procedural breach or something more serious. That is the detail the “truthful” framing leaves out, and it is the detail that will decide what actually happens next.
Also Read: Deepak Parashar Quits CINTAA Citing Humiliation, Alleges Misbehavior by Poonam Dhillon
the CINTAA row is a reminder that in entertainment-union disputes, control of the office and control of the court calendar are two different victories — and only one of them has been settled.
Keep checking VVIPTimes.
Leave a Reply