Madras High Court Allows OTT Rights Holder Of Pawan Kalyan-Starrer Movie To Seek ₹4 Crore Refund From Producer

The Madras High Court has allowed Vijay Kothari, who claims exclusive digital, satellite, and OTT rights over Pawan Kalyan-starrer Hari Hara Veera Mallu, to amend his plaint against Mega Surya Productions.

He can now seek the return of ₹4 crore under an Assignment Agreement, along with 18% interest.

However, Justice K. Kumaresh Babu rejected Kothari's request to raise his damages claim from ₹5 lakh to ₹25 lakh. The court held that the plaint did not contain the necessary pleadings to support the higher damages claim.

Kothari had approached the court claiming exclusive rights over the film's digital, satellite, and OTT rights in India and worldwide.

He also sought a direction to Mega Surya Productions to perform its obligations under an Assignment Agreement dated January 3, 2020, including facilitating his exploitation of the assigned rights.

He had also sought an injunction against the film being released, published, streamed, exhibited or otherwise exploited through digital or OTT platforms, particularly Amazon Prime Video. The original suit claimed ₹5 lakh in damages.

During the hearing, Kothari's counsel submitted that the court had restrained Amazon Seller Services from making payments of ₹4 crore. He further submitted that the film was exploited on the OTT platform, causing further financial loss and mental agony to Kothari.

Kothari then sought to amend the plaint. He wanted to increase the damages claim to ₹25 lakh and add a prayer directing Mega Surya Productions to return ₹4 crore under the Assignment Agreement, with 18% interest.

The court rejected the request for higher damages.

Justice K. Kumaresh Babu observed that the reason given for seeking additional damages was the alleged exploitation of the film. If that was the basis for seeking more compensation, the plaint had to contain details supporting the claim.

“If such is the reason that is attributed, the applicant would also have to bring in necessary averments in the plaint to seek for additional damages namely the date of exploitation by the defendant and the extent of further damages,” the court observed.

The court held that merely increasing the amount in the damages prayer was not enough. The amendment was based on a further cause of action, but that cause of action had not been introduced into the plaint.

The ₹4 crore refund claim was treated differently.

The court noted that the existing plaint already contained pleadings that Kothari had paid ₹5 crore towards the Assignment Agreement. It also recorded his case that ₹1 crore had been paid back by Mega Surya Productions.

Mega Surya Productions disputed this and claimed that no amount had been paid under the Assignment Agreement at all.

The court found that the existing pleadings were sufficient to support the proposed ₹4 crore refund prayer.

“Specific pleadings of the prayer of return of Rs.4,00,00,000/- are available,” the court observed.

The court also noted the undisputed fact that the alleged assignment rights in Kothari's favour had been assigned to a third party. Refusing the amendment in those circumstances, it held, “would only cause injustice to the applicant.”

The court therefore partly allowed the application. Kothari was permitted to amend the plaint to include the ₹4 crore refund prayer with 18% interest and make the consequential change to the valuation.

His request to increase damages to ₹25 lakh was rejected.