The California Supreme Court has ruled in favor of Salman Ahmed, the former international promoter and arts agent for Rahat Fateh Ali Khan, in a $2.2 million lawsuit.
The lawsuit alleged defamation, economic duress, and extortion by a California-based show promoter.
California Superior Court Judge Carrie A. Zepeda has determined that Salman Ahmed conducted himself honestly in his dealings with the show promoter, Bikramjeet Singh, and his company, “Bollywood Events LLC,” which had entered into a contract through Karl Kalra’s “Jeevan Sathi LLC” for a show featuring Ustad Rahat Fateh Ali Khan on October 5, 2019, in San Jose.
Bikramjeet Singh and Bollywood Events claimed to be victims of alleged extortion, economic duress, common counts, unfair business practices, and severe defamation by Salman Ahmed and Rahat. They alleged that $30,000 was extorted from them.
The case went to trial in the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, with Salman Ahmed representing himself and Rahat Fateh Ali. Singh was represented by his legal team, and Rahat Fateh Ali Khan did not appear in court.
Initially, Salman Ahmed had spent over $50,000 on lawyers but later decided to represent the case himself.
Singh and Karl Kalra had agreed to promote a Rahat concert for $250,000, but Singh admitted to having paid only $150,000 to Kalra before the concert. Salman Ahmed had sold the show to Sathi, who further sold it to Singh.
Bikramjeet Singh claimed that Salman Ahmed had agreed to reduce Khan’s performance fee to $150,000, relieving Singh of the obligation to pay the full amount. On the evening of the concert, $100,000 was still outstanding on the contract between Singh and Sathi.
The concert started two hours late, and Rahat took the stage only after receiving $30,000 out of the $100,000 on Kalra’s behalf. Salman Ahmed informed the audience that the concert was delayed due to the promoter’s failure to pay the artist in full.
Singh argued that he should not be liable for the $30,000 or the additional $100,000 since Ahmed had agreed to the reduced fee. He claimed that $30,000 was extorted from him, and his reputation was damaged.
Salman Ahmed denied the allegations, stating that he couldn’t modify the contract between Singh and Sathi. Kalra had threatened legal action if Khan performed before Singh paid.
Kalra later instructed Ahmed to accept the $30,000 from Singh on the concert night, and Ahmed passed the money to Kalra, not keeping any of it. Ahmed maintained that he told the truth to the audience to protect his and Khan’s reputations.
The judge ruled that Singh had not entered into a contract with Salman or Rahat. Singh was bound by the agreement to pay the full amount, and Salman lacked the authority to modify the contract.
Singh breached the contract by failing to pay $250,000 to Kalra before the concert was scheduled to begin, and on the day of the concert, Singh owed $100,000 to Kalra.
The judge determined that Salman Ahmed’s statement to Rahat’s fans, explaining the artist’s delayed appearance due to unpaid fees, did not defame Singh or his company “Bollywood.”
The court found Salman Ahmed to be a credible witness whose testimony was factual and truthful. It concluded that neither Salman Ahmed nor Khan wrongfully demanded money from Singh or Bollywood, and Singh’s breach was the cause of the situation.
The court ruled that Ahmed and Khan did not engage in extortion and were innocent parties in light of Singh’s contractual breach.
