Authority: High Court of Judicature at Madras

Order Date: 31 July 2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Applicant – M/s Ad Bureau Advertising Pvt., Ltd., represented by Managing Director Mr. Abirchand Nahar (address: Nahar House, No.84, Saint Mary's Road, Alwarpet, Chennai – 600018). Respondents – 1) M/s Mediaone Global Entertainment Ltd., represented by Director Dr. J. Murali Manohar (address: No.1 Wallace Lane, 1st Floor, Mataji Complex, Mount Road, Chennai – 600002); 2) Dr. J. Murali Manohar individually; 3) Smt. Latha Rajinikanth; 4) Smt. Soundarya Rajinikanth Ashwin; 5) M/s Eros International Media Ltd. (address: No.201, Kailash Plaza, Andheri West, Mumbai – 400053).
  • Nature of Proceeding: Original Application (O.A.No.181 of 2026 in C.S.No.545 of 2015) seeking an ad‑interim injunction to restrain respondents, their agents, distributors, OTT platforms, exhibitors and any persons claiming through them from releasing, distributing, screening, streaming, marketing, advertising or otherwise exploiting the AI‑enhanced or derivative version of the film "Kochadaiiyaan" in any format, territory or platform, pending disposal of the underlying suit.
  • Background: The applicant alleges that on 25‑04‑2014, 21‑05‑2014 and by a deed of guarantee dated 04‑05‑2014, it transferred Rs 10,00,00,000 (Rs 10 crore) to the respondents via RTGS for production of the film. The respondents had agreed to repay Rs 20.40 crore, including collection rights in Tamil Nadu. The cheques issued to honour this commitment were dishonoured; proceedings under the Negotiable Instruments Act are pending before the Apex Court, and the respondents have allegedly failed to comply with an undertaking given before the Apex Court. The applicant contends that the respondents’ planned AI‑enhanced re‑release would render its money‑recovery claim futile, hence the injunction.
  • Respondents’ Submissions: The respondents argue that the present application is ancillary to a money‑recovery suit already filed in 2015, that the cheque dispute is under appeal before the Apex Court, and that the suit is at the evidence stage with no trial completed for the past four months. They assert that the applicant’s only right is monetary recovery, not an injunction, especially since the fifth defendant (Eros International Media Ltd.) has acquired the film rights with the applicant’s knowledge, and the applicant has not sought relief against this fifth defendant.
  • Court’s Observations: The Court noted that the suit’s issues were framed on 23‑10‑2019, with a case‑management schedule requiring witness examination by 22‑01‑2020, yet as of the order date the trial remains incomplete. The cause of action pertains only to transactions with defendants 1‑3. The purchase of rights by the fifth defendant was not bonafide and was made with full knowledge of the applicant’s rights. Since the applicant did not seek relief against the fifth defendant, who is now the assignee of the film, the Court found no merit in granting an injunction to restrain the film’s re‑release.

Final Outcome

  • The Court dismissed the Original Application for an ad‑interim injunction, finding no merit. No order as to costs was made. The underlying money‑recovery suit continues.

Topics: Legal Dispute, Film Rights