Madras High Court Refuses to Stay Release Of ‘Maamannan’ Movie.
Case Title: Mr. Ramasaravanan … Petitioner
Versus
Udayanidhi Stalin and Anrs … Respondents
Date of Decision: Pronounced On 28.06.2023
Coram: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. KUMARESH BABU
Citation: O.A. No.562 of 2023 and A.NO. 3179 OF 2023 in C.S. No. 109 of 2023.
Introduction:
The Madras High Court has refused to stall the relese of Udayanidhi starrer movie “Maamannan”. The court passed orders on a plea filed by Producer Ramasaravanan seeking injunction against the release of the movie and further to direct Udayanidhi Stalin to complete the shooting in a previously agreed upon film titled “Angel”.
These applications have been taken out seeking for an interim
injunction restraining from in any manner whatsoever releasing the film
titled as “Maamannan” without completing the shooting schedule and
dubbing of the film titled as “Angel” and also for interim direction to direct
the 1st respondent/ defendant to complete the shooting and dubbing of the
film titled “Angel” so as to enable the applicant/ plaintiff to release the film.
Facts:
The applicant would submit that applicant is engaged in the business of film production and had produced various Tamil Cinematographic films and is a Proprietor of an established banner and has got a very good reputation in the film industry. He would submit that the applicant had entered upon an agreement with the third party for directing a film that is titled as “Angel”, in which the 1st respondent herein was to feature as a lead hero. He would
submit that the arrangement between the applicant and the 1st respondent was an oral arrangement and that an amount of Rs.1,25,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore Twenty Five Lakhs only) was to be paid a remuneration to the 1st respondent. He would also submit that a sum of Rs.30,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Lakhs) had been paid to him as part payment. The shooting was scheduled and would submit that 80% of the work is over and what is left out was the scenes which would have to be shooted to fill up certain gaps and dubbing as regards to the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent had been elected as a Member of the Legislative Assembly during the election conducted in the year 2021 and that he had also been appointed as a Minister for Youth Welfare and Sports Development of Tamil Nadu in the year 2022. On his appointment, the 1st respondent had made a declaration in public that “Maamannan” will be his last film which would only mean that he would not act any further film. He would submit that the film “Angel” is in finishing stage and if the 1st respondent did not complete the film.
Issue:
Can the Court entertain an injunction against the third party from implementing their agreement entered upon with the same person with whom the applicant had entered into an agreement?
Legal Analysis:
When the case came up before Justice K Kumaresh Babu, the judge observed that the agreement between Udayanidhi and Ramasaravan was completely different from the one entered into between Udayanidhi and the producers of Maamannan movie ie, Red Giant Movies, and hence an injunction could not be granted to implement merely because on the parties to both the agreements was same person. The court added that it could not entertain an injunction against third parties from implementing their agreements.
Ramasaravanan, in his plea had submitted that he had entered into an agreement with third parties for making the film titled “Angel” and Udayanidhi was to be featured as the lead hero. He added that an oral agreement was entered into between the parties and an amount of Rs. 1,25,00,000 was to be paid as remuneration to Udayanidhi. He further submitted that a sum of thirty lakhs had already been paid as part payment.
Ramasaravan further submitted that due to covid, the shooting of the movie was stalled and presently 80% of the movie has been completed and only dubbing and shooting of some filler scenes were left. He added that while so, Udayanishi was elected as a Member of Legislative Assembly in 2021 and has been appointed as Minister for Youth Welfare and Sports Development of Tamil Nadu. He submitted that after his new appointment, Udayanidhi announced that he would not act in any movies. He submitted that if the same is to be true, he would suffer a huge loss amounting to twenty five crore rupees and would also affect others involved in the film.
On the other hand, Udayanidhi submitted that he had been paid only five lakh rupees as against the thirty lacks claimed by the producer. He added that though he has said that he would not act in any movies, it would not include dubbing. He added that what the producer was now seeking was a part performance of an oral agreement for which he is attempting to stall an independent arrangement. He added that even otherwise, the producer had sought for an alternate relief of compensation and thus no mandatory injunction was necessary.
The court found favour in these arguments. The court noted that the producer had to first approach the actor for completing the movie and even if the actor refuses, the producer was not without a remedy as he himself had sought for an alternative prayer. The court thus said that it was not inclined to grant injunction and thus dismissed the petitions.
Judgement:
The prayer in the present application is also the prayer in the main Suit, but however with an alternative relief of Rs.25,00,00,000/- as compensation. The applicant himself has admitted in the project of the film titled “Angel”, expenditure is Rs.13,00,00,000/- and expects a sum of
Rs.12,00,00,000/- as project which would entitle him for a compensation ofRs.25,00,00,000/- from the first respondent. It is for the applicant to approach the first respondent to seek his consent for completing the film. If he refuses to complete his part of performance, it does not mean that the applicant is without any relief for the simple reason that he himself had sought for an alternative prayer of compensation of Rs.25,00,00,000/- for the loss that is
incurred by the plaintiff. In view of the non-performance and refusal for completing the shooting schedule and dubbing of the film titled as “Angel” so as to enable the plaintiff to release the said film. Therefore, I am not inclined to grant the direction sought by the applicant
Conclusion:
The Court interpreted the law in the right way and has ordered the refusal to stall the relese of Udayanidhi starrer movie “Maamannan”. The court passed orders on a plea filed by Producer Ramasaravanan seeking injunction against the release of the movie and further to direct Udayanidhi Stalin to complete the shooting in a previously agreed upon film titled “Angel”in view of the non-performance and refusal for completing the shooting schedule and dubbing of the film titled as “Angel” so as to enable the plaintiff to release the said film.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY JANGAM SHASHIDHAR.