Madras High Court Refuses To Halt Re-Release Of Kamal Haasan Starrer "Nayagan" Movie

Justice N Senthilkumar refused to grant an interim injunction on a plea filed by Karnataka based SR Film factory. The court remarked that there was no prima facie infringement and refused to grant the interim relief.

The company had approached the court claiming that acquired the rights for the movie including its re-release and digital formatting rights from June 30, 2023 till November 17, 2035 by an agreement dated October 11,2023. The company further submitted that it had paid a consideration of Rs. 60,00,000 for acquiring the rights for digital theatrical exhibition, exploitation, and distribution rights in the territory of Tamil Nadu, Kerala, and Karnataka.

It was submitted that while the company was doing the digitisation of the movie and preparing it for a re-release, it came across advertisements and announcements stating that the movie was being re-released on 6th November, 2025.

It was thus claimed that the ATM Production, Surabhi Enterprises, and VS Film International, who originally held rights in the movie have suppressed the existing agreement and colluded with Qube Cinemas and UFO Movies to allow re-release of the movie. It was argued that the respondents had violated the company's exclusive rights in the cinematograph film under Sections 14(d) and 51 of the Copyright Act.

The company had thus approached the court seeking to restrain the respondents from interfering with its rights.

Countering the plea, Advocate Vijayan Subramaniam, appearing for VS Film International, submitted that it held a valid license authorising it for a re-release. He also argued that the plaintiff had not made out a case of copyright infringement and sought to dismiss the plea.

The court, after hearing the arguments, noted that there was no prima facie case for an interim injunction. The court thus refused the interim relief and asked the respondents to file their counters.

Case Title: SR Film Factory v. ATM Production and others

Case No: OA 1051/2025 and CS (Comm Div) 280/2025