Back
Allows Theatrical Release of Jayam Ravi Film Karathey Babu in Dispute
In a significant development for the Tamil film industry, the has permitted the theatrical release of the upcoming Jayam Ravi-starrer Karathey Babu while maintaining a broad on other assigned rights. Justice K. Kumaresh Babu modified the earlier blanket restraint order on , allowing the producer, , to proceed with the film’s theatrical release.
A Film Caught in a Clash
The dispute arose from a 2022 between Dr. S. Venkatesh (the plaintiff) and Screen Scene (the defendant) concerning two untitled film projects, Production No. 8 and Production No. 9. When Screen Scene released Production No. 8 (later titled Brother ) without honouring Dr. Venkatesh’s , the parties executed amendments specifically assigning all rights of Production No. 9 — now known as Karathey Babu — to Dr. Venkatesh. The assignment covered an extensive bundle of , including satellite, OTT, dubbing, remake, and even NFT-related rights, but notably excluded .
Based on these agreements and a letter to a film laboratory acknowledging the assignment, Dr. Venkatesh obtained an on , restraining Screen Scene from dealing with the film in any manner. Screen Scene then moved to vacate that injunction, alleging the agreements were fabricated.
The Under Scrutiny
Screen Scene contended that the documents were a “calculated misrepresentation.” Counsel argued that the blank signed papers, promissory notes, and letterheads handed over as collateral for an overdraft facility against Dr. Venkatesh’s fixed deposits with had been misused to create the assignment agreements. The company vehemently denied any assignment of theatrical release rights.
Dr. Venkatesh’s counsel countered by pointing to the undisputed signatures on the agreements, the laboratory letter, and minutes of a meeting where Screen Scene’s Managing Director allegedly affirmed the assignment. “At no point of time were allegations of blank signed papers made by the defendant,” the plaintiff argued.
Blank Paper Allegations Dismissed
The court closely examined the documents. “Even though the defendant had disputed the agreement, he has not disputed the signatures found in the said agreements,” Justice Babu observed. The minutes of the meeting were also challenged on the ground that the Managing Director had signed for multiple group companies, but the judge noted that “he had not disputed that he is not having any role in any of the companies which he represented.”
Rejecting the fabrication claim, the court held: “This Court is of the view that the plaintiff would be entitled for an injunction for violating the that had vested with it under the agreements as amended.”
Balancing Rights: Theatrical vs. Other Rights
While finding a strong case for Dr. Venkatesh on the assigned rights, the court drew a critical distinction. “From the above, it could be observed that the copy rights and other rights both commercial and non commercial in various modes have been given to the plaintiff except the ,” the judgment stated.
This exclusion meant the original was too wide. The court therefore modified the order, restricting the injunction to the rights enumerated in of the — which include every conceivable form of exploitation except theatrical exhibition. Screen Scene was expressly permitted to release Karathey Babu in theatres.
What the Court Ordered
The High Court disposed of both the vacate applications and the original applications by directing that:
- The stands only in respect of the rights assigned under of the .
- Screen Scene Media Entertainment is free to proceed with the theatrical release of Karathey Babu .
- .
The ruling ensures that Jayam Ravi’s film can hit the big screen without delay, while Dr. Venkatesh’s claims over satellite, digital, and other ancillary rights remain protected pending the final disposal of the suit. The decision offers a practical template for courts dealing with disputes where rights are partially assigned — balancing the interests of producers and assignees without stifling commercial release.
