Authority: High Court of Judicature at Madras

Order Date: 28 September 2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Applicant – M/s TSR Films Private Limited (represented by D. Teddy Joshua). Respondents – 1) P.V. Prasath, 2) M/s Raviprasad Film Labs Private Limited (MD P. Ravikumar), 3) Tamil Film Producers Council (Honorary Secretary). The suit (C.S.(Comm.Div.) No.115 of 2025) concerns recovery of money and a mandatory injunction for release of the film "Sakunthalavin Kathalan".
  • Applications: A No. 931 of 2026 – application to reject the plaint. A No. 2217 of 2025 – application for interim direction directing the first and second defendants to release the film by 30.04.2025.
  • Background: Plaintiff alleges a Lab Finance Agreement where the first defendant (Raviprasad Film Labs) advanced Rs 50 lakhs for film production but paid only Rs 12,50,000 and failed to provide promised services. Plaintiff completed the film and sought exhibition from the second defendant (a digital service provider). The first defendant issued a notice claiming dues of Rs 1,38,00,000 and demanded the film not be released without a No‑Objection Certificate. The second defendant exhibited the film on 30‑Dec‑2022 under authorisation from the plaintiff but stopped screening after receiving the first defendant’s stop notice.
  • Legal Contentions: Plaintiff seeks mandatory injunction for release and damages, arguing piracy risk and financial hardship. First defendant argues that granting interim relief would pre‑empt the main suit. Second defendant contends it acted on plaintiff’s authorisation, was unaware of the plaintiff‑first defendant dispute, and bears no liability for damages.

Final Outcome

  • The Court observed that the interim direction sought mirrors the main relief in the suit; granting it would render the main suit infructuous.
  • The Court noted that the film had already been released on 30‑Dec‑2022 and subsequently stopped per the first defendant’s notice, which was admitted by all parties.
  • Consequently, the Court dismissed both the application to reject the plaint (A No. 931 of 2026) and the application for interim direction (A No. 2217 of 2025).
  • No order as to costs was made.

Topics: Film Release Dispute, Interim Injunction