Madras High Court: In interlocutory applications filed in a copyright infringement suit, a Single Judge Bench of Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy, J., held that the applicant had not made out a case for interim injunction restraining release of the film “PARASAKTHI”. The Court emphasised that the relief claimed in the plaint was limited to restraining attribution of authorship, whereas the interim relief sought to prevent screening of “PARASAKTHI” travelled beyond the scope of the plaint. Observing that the balance of convenience was not in favour of the applicant, the Court dismissed the injunction application but directed the expert body to submit a comparative report for consideration at final disposal.
Background:
The applicant asserted authorship of a script titled “CHEMMOZHI”, registered in 2010, and claimed that efforts were made to produce a film by copying this script. A complaint was lodged in January 2025 alleging copying in relation to the film “PARASAKTHI”.
The applicant contended that details of the script were set out in the plaint and that the counter affidavits did not contain substantive denial. It was also argued that the Defendant 1 had previously plagiarised stories of others, relying on a YouTube video screenshot.
The respondents argued that the applicant had not prayed for a declaration of infringement and that the interim relief sought was wider than the relief claimed in the plaint. They submitted that the applicant became aware of the film in late 2023 but instituted the suit only in December 2025, and therefore the request should be declined on grounds of laches. It was further contended that the assertion of copying was categorically denied, with emphasis that dialogues, emotional pitch, sequencing of events, and the manner in which the story unfolds bore no resemblance to the applicant’s work.
Additionally, it was highlighted that an Expert Consultant Agreement had been entered into with a participant of the 1965 anti-Hindi agitation, who consented to sharing his life experiences and historical inputs.
Analysis and Decision:
The Court emphasised that the relief claimed in the plaint was limited to restraining the defendants from displaying names as writers or creators, whereas the interim relief sought to prevent screening of the film, which travelled beyond the scope of the plaint. The Court noted that at this juncture, it is not possible to even reach a prima facie finding that copyright infringement has taken place.
The Court observed that the balance of convenience is not in favour of the plaintiff. The Court further noted that even if the movie is released, the plaintiff would be in a position to claim damages. The Court highlighted that the Defendant 4, who is the producer, has asserted that the movie is a big budget film and that any interference would cause huge financial losses. The Court also emphasised that in the production of a movie, there are multiple stakeholders, all of whom would be adversely affected by an interim injunction.
The Court further observed that copying is ordinarily required to be adjudicated from the perspective of an average common reader or viewer, as the case may be, the probative value of such report would warrant careful consideration in course of final disposal.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the application for interim injunction without costs and directed the expert body to submit its report in a sealed envelope, with its relevance and weight to be determined during final disposal. Consequently, the main suit was listed for hearing on 28-01-2026.
[K.V. Rajendran v. Sudha Kongara, 2026 SCC OnLine Mad 27, decided on 02-01-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For Applicant: M. Purushothaman
For Respondents: P.S. Raman, Senior Counsel, Vijayan Subramanian, P.H. Arvindh Pandian, Senior Counsel