Devdas has a complaint

Shah says the allegations in the report created a ‘‘prejudice’’ against the film and obstructed the film’s ‘‘realistic chance of winning an Oscar’’.

The article by Catherine Philp appeared on on January 11 with the headline: ‘‘Bollywood starlet plays brave role in fight against the mob’’ along side a film still of Aamir Khan and Preity Zinta and a file photograph of Shah. Shah was on a business trip to London when the article was published.

Shah says: ‘‘I had gone to London in connection with my diamond business after obtaining permission from the court. They are playing a dirty game. It is a question of my prestige. The UK has a stronger defamation law.’’

Accusing the London paper of incorrect reportage and publishing facts without verification, Shah has demanded an unconditional apology within two weeks of the legal notice.

In his notice, Shah has objected to seven separate references in the article including a paragraph which alleges that Sanjay Leela Bhansali, who directed Devdas, was financed with seven million pounds of ‘‘underworld cash’’.

Devdas, which on Tuesday lost out in the race for Best Foreign Film nominations at the Academy Awards, has been financed by Mega Bollywood Ltd in which Shah is a director and a shareholder.

The report reads: ‘‘Producers unable to raise funds to finance their film under stringent banking practices were happy to take the money from their mob friends and return it with interest. These are no small budget affairs either, Devdas, India’s submission for this year’s foreign film Oscar, was said to have been financed with pounds seven million of underworld cash.’’

Calling this inaccurate, defamatory and malicious, Shah states in his notice that the allegations created a ‘‘prejudice’’ against the film and obstructed the film’s ‘‘realistic chance of winning an Oscar’’.

He states that all financial transactions for the film were made by cheque and in a transparent manner.

Vibhav Krishna, Shah’s lawyer in Mumbai, says: ‘‘We have instructed our British solicitors to look into the matter and seek an apology. If they fail to do so, we contemplate proceedings against them including defamatory proceedings.’’

Shah also challenges a reference to Zinta’s in-camera testimony when called as a witness for ‘‘prosecution’’.

The article states that Zinta told the court she had received threats from Shakeel’s gang in an attempt to extort money and pressure her into dropping other film projects to appear in Chori Chori Chupke Chupke (CCCC), a film backed by Shah and producer Nazeem Rizvi.

Contending that Zinta’s recorded police statement does not contain this information, Shah’s notice says that Zinta had categorically stated to police that she ‘‘was not forced by anyone’’ to act in CCCC and that she had acted in the film at the insistence of director Abbas-Mastan.