Madras High Court Refuses To Stay Release Of Udayanidhi Stalin Starrer 'Maamannan' Movie

When the case came up before Justice K Kumaresh Babu, the judge observed that the agreement between Udayanidhi and Ramasaravan was completely different from the one entered into between Udayanidhi and the producers of Maamannan movie ie, Red Giant Movies, and hence an injunction could not be granted to implement merely because on the parties to both the agreements was same person. The court added that it could not entertain an injunction against third parties from implementing their agreements.

“I am afraid that to implement an agreement entered into between two parties, an injunction could not be granted of an agreement entered between two other persons just because one of the party to both the agreement is the same person. I would understand if the agreements are interlinked or subject to one other, it is not the case of the applicant that the two independent agreements are either interlinked or subject to one other. When that be so, this Court cannot entertain an injunction against the third party from implementing their agreement entered upon with the same person with whom the applicant had entered into an agreement,” the court said.

Ramasaravanan, in his plea had submitted that he had entered into an agreement with third parties for making the film titled “Angel” and Udayanidhi was to be featured as the lead hero. He added that an oral agreement was entered into between the parties and an amount of Rs. 1,25,00,000 was to be paid as remuneration to Udayanidhi. He further submitted that a sum of thirty lakhs had already been paid as part payment.

Ramasaravan further submitted that due to covid, the shooting of the movie was stalled and presently 80% of the movie has been completed and only dubbing and shooting of some filler scenes were left. He added that while so, Udayanishi was elected as a Member of Legislative Assembly in 2021 and has been appointed as Minister for Youth Welfare and Sports Development of Tamil Nadu. He submitted that after his new appointment, Udayanidhi announced that he would not act in any movies. He submitted that if the same is to be true, he would suffer a huge loss amounting to twenty five crore rupees and would also affect others involved in the film.

On the other hand, Udayanidhi submitted that he had been paid only five lakh rupees as against the thirty lacks claimed by the producer. He added that though he has said that he would not act in any movies, it would not include dubbing. He added that what the producer was now seeking was a part performance of an oral agreement for which he is attempting to stall an independent arrangement. He added that even otherwise, the producer had sought for an alternate relief of compensation and thus no mandatory injunction was necessary.

The court found favour in these arguments. The court noted that the producer had to first approach the actor for completing the movie and even if the actor refuses, the producer was not without a remedy as he himself had sought for an alternative prayer. The court thus said that it was not inclined to grant injunction and thus dismissed the petitions.

Mr.T.Thiageswaran appeared for the applicant while the respondents were represented by Senior Counsel Mr.R.Vivekananthan and Senior Counsel N.R.Elango (for Mr.M.V.Vijaya Baskar).

Challenge Relating To Communal Tension

Another plea was filed before the Madurai bench of the Madras High Court seeking a ban on the release of the movie. The ban was sought on the ground that the movie had certain aspects which could lead to communal tensions and law and order situation.

The bench of Justice R Subramanian and Justice Victoria Gowri, however, refused to hear the case on an urgent basis and said that the court could not interfere with the decision of the Central Board of Film Certification.

The court also remarked that every person had a right to freedom of speech and expression and that any law and order problem could be taken care of by the police authorities.

Case Title: Mr. Ramasaravanan v. Udayanidhi Stalin and another

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 176

Case No: OA No 562 of 2023