MUMBAI: The Bombay high court cleared the decks for the Friday release of Prakash Jha's new film " Satyagraha " . On Wednesday the HC refused to grant any relief to Narayani Productions which claimed that Jha had snatched its rights to the film title " Satyagraha '' which it had registered earlier. Jha's legal team pointed out that it had registered the film title with the film bodies after a claim by Narayani had lapsed and no renewal application was filed for six months. The plea was to stop release of the film Satyagraha and also for damages worth Rs 25 crore . A producer had filed a suit claiming that he had valid registration of the title, Satyagraha, in his favour and that Jha had illegally adopted the same title, Satyagraha for their film, which is due to be released on 30 August, 2013. Jha's film stars Amitabh Bachchan. The plaintiff also alleged collusion between Prakash Jha Productions and Association of Motion Picture and TV Programme Producers (AMPTPP) in "snatching away" his right in the title, Satyagraha. The plaintiff first sought registration of the title, Satyagraha, with the AMPTPP in 2004. AMPTPP granted a registration of the said title in the plaintiff's favour on 3 November, 2004, which was valid for a period of one year, till November 2005. Subsequently, the plaintiff renewed the registration of the title in his favour with AMPTPP till 2010. The Plaintiff's last renewal of registration of the name Satyagraha was on January 30, 2010, wherein AMPTPP granted a registration of the title in his favour till January, 2011. He was required to file an application for renewal prior to the expiry of the registration. However, no such application was made to AMPTPP. In August, 2011, Narayani Productions paid a fee of Rs 1500 to AMPTPP and sought registration of "Satyagraha" in its favour but had begun producing no film by that name. The Industry practice is that several associations register titles in favour of producers. These associations include AMPTPP and the Indian Motion Picture Producers' Association (IMPPA) which are governed by an umbrella organisation--The Film Makers Combine (FMC). When a producer applies for registration of a title with an association, this association first checks with other associations to see if the title has already been registered. This practice helps avoid duplicity in registration of titles. Jha represented by advocate Madhu Chaudhary and counsel Venkatesh Dhond said he had a valid subsisting registration of the title, Satyagraha, in his favour with the AMPTPP and IMPPA. He had applied for the name-Satyagraha--i June 2011 with IMPAA. At that Narayani's registration had lapsed and no renewal application was pending. On August 25, 2011, when AMPTPP received Narayani's application for registration of the title, Satyagraha, it sent a letter to the Film Makers Combine (FMC) on 31 August, 2011, seeking status of titles for registration with other associations. In November, 2011, AMPTPP held a meeting and decided not to grant registration of the name Satyagraha to Narayani. Prakash Jha Productions made an application for registration of the title, Satyagraha, with AMPTPP, and got it registered in January 2012. It renewed its registration and continues to hold a valid registration when it announced the film Satyagraha in September 2012. Justice S J Kathawala rejected the prayer for ad-interim relief after observing that Narayani had failed to make out a prime facie case for any such relief. The judge held that, if anyone is responsible for it not having registration of the title, Satyagraha, it was Narayani Production itself as it failed to renew the registration of the title before 29 January, 2011.