Madras High Court Refuses To Stall Release Of AI-Enhanced Kochadaiiyaan Over 2014 Financing Dispute

The Madras High Court has refused to stop the release of an AI-enhanced version of the 2014 Rajinikanth film Kochadaiiyaan. It held that the film's financier could not seek to restrain its release since it had not sought any relief against the company that is now the assignee of the film.

Justice K. Kumaresh Babu observed that "the plaintiff had not sought for any relief as against the fifth defendant, who is admittedly now assignee of the film." In view of this, the court held that it could not prevent the film's re-release at this stage.

The application was filed by Ad Bureau Advertising Pvt. Ltd., a company that had financed the production of Kochadaiiyaan in 2014.

Under agreements executed in April and May 2014, Ad Bureau transferred Rs.10 crore to Mediaone Global Entertainment Ltd., the film's producer. In return, the producer and its director, Dr. J. Murali Manohar, agreed to repay Rs.20.40 crore. They also agreed to give Ad Bureau rights over the film's collections in Tamil Nadu.

The cheques issued towards repayment were later dishonoured. This led to criminal proceedings under the Negotiable Instruments Act, which are pending in appeal before the Supreme Court. Ad Bureau also filed a money recovery suit before the Madras High Court in 2015.

Besides the producer and its director, the suit also names Latha Rajinikanth, Soundarya Rajinikanth Ashwin, and Eros International Media Ltd. Ad Bureau alleges that Eros acquired the film rights despite being aware of its claim over them.

After learning that Kochadaiiyaan had been enhanced using artificial intelligence and was expected to be re-released, Ad Bureau filed the present application. It sought an interim injunction restraining the release, distribution, streaming or any other exploitation of the AI-enhanced version until the money recovery suit is decided.

Ad Bureau argued that the producer had failed to repay the amount or honour the cheques. It contended that the producer therefore had no right to release the film. It also argued that permitting the release would render its recovery claim in the pending suit futile.

The respondents opposed the plea. They pointed out that the money recovery suit had already reached the trial stage and that evidence on their side was being recorded. According to them, Ad Bureau's remedy lay in pursuing its monetary claim in the pending suit. They argued there was no basis to stop the film's release.

Examining the pleadings in the 2015 suit, the court noted that Ad Bureau had alleged Eros' acquisition of the film rights was "not bonafide". However, it had not sought any relief against Eros. The company is now the assignee of the film.

In these circumstances, the court ruled that it could not restrain Eros or anyone claiming through it from re-releasing the film. Finding no merit in the application, it dismissed the plea. The original money recovery will however continue.