Varun Dhawan Never Checked In After Coolie No 1's Rs 27 Crore Loss, Says Producer Vashu Bhagnani

Producer Vashu Bhagnani, who is involved in a legal clash with David Dhawan, said that David’s son Varun never bothered to check on him after their 2020 collaboration ‘Coolie No. 1’ sank without a trace.

The producer held a virtual press conference in light of the fresh legal battle with David Dhawan and music label Tips.

The lawsuit filed by Vashu Bhagnani in Katihar, Bihar, centres on the upcoming Bollywood film ‘Hai Jawani Toh Ishq Hona Hai’, starring Varun Dhawan. Vashu Bhagnani filed a lawsuit against Tips Industries and associated parties, alleging unauthorised use of intellectual property linked to older hit films like ‘Biwi No.1’.

Talking about the same, he told the media, “Very honestly, after this case, there is some bitterness in all

relationships. But Varun hasn’t called me in 2 years anyway. We made ‘Coolie No. 1’ in 2020, suffered a loss of INR 27 crore, but he never even bothered to ask how I was doing. If he maintains the relationship, fine. If not, that’s fine too. I lost a lot of money being with him. He is like my child; children make mistakes. Father and son, so be it”.

The immediate trigger behind the lawsuit was the recreated use of the iconic song ‘Chunari Chunari’ from ‘Biwi No.1’.

The producer further mentioned, “My heart is broken. I am not afraid of anyone in this world, not even my father. I am proud that I have never done wrong to anyone. But I am broken because after doing so much, they are making me out to be the thief, the fool. Varun Dhawan is saying these things. David Ji is saying these things. Ramesh Ji too. There is no need for this”.

He added, “We had such a good relationship. Even now, I am saying, call them on this call, I will settle it in 10 minutes. But if they don’t want to, how can it be settled? They were so confident until 3 days ago: ‘What can Vashu do to us?’”

Vashu Bhagnani claimed that although Tips owned audio rights, the underlying film-linked intellectual property and recreation permissions still required consent or involvement from his side.