Madras High Court Refuses To Reject Seven Arts' Copyright Suit In Hera Pheri Remake Rights Dispute

The Madras High Court has dismissed filmmaker Firoz Nadiadwala's plea seeking rejection of a copyright infringement suit filed by Seven Arts International Limited. The suit concerns alleged remake rights to the Malayalam films Ramji Rao Speaking and Mannar Mathai Speaking, which Seven Arts claims form the basis of the Bollywood Hera Pheri franchise.

Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy passed the order on April 24.

Seven Arts claimed in the suit that it acquired remake rights to both films through an assignment agreement dated May 12, 2022, executed with the original screenplay authors K.I. Siddique and M. Paul Michael, along with producer Mani C. Kappan.

It alleged that Nadiadwala's announcement of Hera Pheri 3 infringed its copyright and issued a cease-and-desist notice in December 2024.

Nadiadwala sought rejection of the plaint on several grounds. He argued that the suit was barred by limitation since Hera Pheri was released in 2000 and Phir Hera Pheri in 2006.

He also contended that Seven Arts was not a party to the assignment agreement. He argued that the death of one of the original screenplay authors, K.I. Siddique, in August 2023 revoked the power of attorney. He further claimed that the assignment itself was invalid under Section 19 of the Copyright Act.

The Court rejected each ground.

On limitation, it was held that since Seven Arts had pleaded a continuing cause of action arising from the announcement of Hera Pheri 3, the suit could not be rejected at this stage.

On the identity of the assignee, the Court noted that the plaint itself asserted Seven Arts as the assignee under the 2022 agreement. At this stage, the question is only whether the plaint discloses a cause of action, not whether the plaintiff can prove it.

On the issue of K.I. Siddique's death, the court observed that if the power of attorney granted by the original rights holders was coupled with interest, it would not stand revoked merely by the death of a principal under Section 202 of the Contract Act. It also relied on a Division Bench ruling holding that the death of one of several principals does not necessarily terminate an agency arrangement.

On the validity of the assignment, the Court held that such a determination could not be made at the plaint rejection stage.

“In effect, the applicant has conflated the requirements of the plaint disclosing a cause of action with establishing elements of such cause of action so as to succeed in the suit claim,” the Court observed.

The application was dismissed without any order as to costs