Madras High Court refuses to restrain release of AI-enhanced version of Rajinikanth’s Kochadaiiyaan

The Madras High Court on July 31 refused to restrain the release of an Artificial Intelligence-enhanced or remastered version of the Rajinikanth-starrer film Kochadaiiyaan [Ad Bureau Advertising Vs MediaOne]

Justice K Kumaresh Babu dismissed an interim application filed as part of a long running financial dispute between Ad Bureau Advertising Private Limited and the film's producer, Mediaone Global Entertainment Ltd.

Ad Bureau Advertising is reported to have lent money to the producer of Kochadaiiyaan to provide financing for the film's post-production. 

In 2015, the ad agency filed a money recovery suit against Mediaone Global Entertainment and others connected to the film such as Mediaone Global's director Dr J Murali Manohar, the film's promoter Latha Rajinikanth, and the film's director Soundarya Rajinikanth.

This year, it was announced that a remastered version of the film would be released by production house Eros International Media Limited.

This led Ad Bureau Advertising to file an interim application before the High Court to restrain any such re-release of the film while its money recovery suit remains pending.

The Court, on July 31, dismissed this application after noting that Eros admittedly now held rights to the film.

"The plaintiff had not sought for any relief as against the fifth defendant (Eros), who is admittedly now assignee of the film. When that being so, the claim of the applicant to prevent the re-release of the film... could not be entertained by this Court at the present stage," it said.

The money recovery suit arose from agreements executed in April and May 2014 and a deed of guarantee dated May 4, 2014. Ad Bureau claimed it transferred ₹10 crore to finance the film and that the defendants had agreed to repay ₹20.40 crore, along with granting collection rights in Tamil Nadu.

However, these repayment obligations were allegedly not honoured, prompting Ad Bureau to file its money recovery suit, apart from filing a cheque dishonour case.

In its latest application, the ad agency argued that the re-release of the film could affect its claims in the money recovery suit.

Appearing in person, Ad Bureau Managing Director Abirchand Nahar told the Court that the defendants had allegedly failed to honour cheques and an undertaking given by them before the Supreme Court in related proceedings. They had no right to release the film, he contended.

The filmmakers countered that the suit is only for recovery of money, not ownership of the film, and that Ad Bureau has no right to prevent the film's release.

The Court dismissed Ad Bureau's application as devoid of merit.

However, it also briefly expressed concerns about the pace of the 2015 money recovery suit.

The Court observed that the issues involved in the case were framed as far back as in 2019, and that the case management schedule contemplated the completion of witness examination by January 2020 and oral arguments the following month.

"However, the trial remained incomplete, with the recording of evidence on the defendants’ side yet to conclude," it noted.

Advocates Sai Bharath and Ilan represented Mediaone Global Entertainment.

Advocate TT Ravichandran appeared for Murali Manohar.

Advocate S Elambarathi represented Latha Rajinikanth and Soundarya Rajinikanth Ashwin.

Advocate Anirudh A Sriram represented Eros International.

[Read Judgment]