Madras High Court Refuses To Reject Seven Arts’ Suit Claiming Hera Pheri Remake Rights Over Malayalam Originals
Introduction
The Madras High Court has dismissed filmmaker Firoz Nadiadwala’s application seeking rejection of a copyright infringement suit filed by Seven Arts International Limited concerning alleged remake rights to the Malayalam films Ramji Rao Speaking and Mannar Mathai Speaking. Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy held that the objections raised by Nadiadwala involved issues requiring adjudication during trial and could not justify rejection of the plaint at the threshold stage.
Factual Background
Seven Arts International claimed that it acquired remake rights to the Malayalam films Ramji Rao Speaking and Mannar Mathai Speaking through an assignment agreement dated 12 May 2022 executed with screenplay authors K.I. Siddique and M. Paul Michael, along with producer Mani C. Kappan.
According to Seven Arts, the Bollywood Hera Pheri franchise was based upon these Malayalam films. The company alleged that the announcement of Hera Pheri 3 by Firoz Nadiadwala infringed its copyright arising from the assignment agreement. Seven Arts consequently issued a cease-and-desist notice in December 2024 asserting its rights.
Procedural Background
Seven Arts instituted a copyright infringement suit before the Madras High Court. Firoz Nadiadwala filed an application seeking rejection of the plaint on multiple grounds, including limitation, lack of locus standi, invalidity of the assignment agreement, and termination of the power of attorney following the death of one of the assignors. The matter came before Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy for determination of the application seeking rejection of the plaint.
Issues
1. Whether the copyright infringement suit was barred by limitation.
2. Whether Seven Arts International had disclosed a valid cause of action.
3. Whether the assignment agreement relied upon by Seven Arts was invalid under Section 19 of the Copyright Act.
4. Whether the death of one of the original rights holders revoked the power of attorney and affected the assignment arrangement.
5. Whether the plaint was liable to be rejected at the threshold stage.
Contentions of the Parties
Nadiadwala contended that the suit was barred by limitation because Hera Pheri had been released in 2000 and Phir Hera Pheri in 2006. He further argued that Seven Arts was not itself a party to the assignment agreement and therefore lacked enforceable rights. It was also argued that the death of screenplay writer K.I. Siddique in August 2023 revoked the power of attorney relied upon by Seven Arts. Additionally, Nadiadwala contended that the assignment itself was invalid under Section 19 of the Copyright Act.
Seven Arts argued that the cause of action was continuing in nature and arose afresh upon the announcement of Hera Pheri 3. It further contended that the plaint specifically pleaded that Seven Arts was the assignee under the 2022 assignment agreement and therefore disclosed a valid cause of action. The company also argued that issues relating to validity of assignment and agency arrangements involved mixed questions of law and fact that could only be examined at trial.
Reasoning and Analysis
The High Court rejected each of the grounds raised by Nadiadwala for rejection of the plaint.
On limitation, the Court held that Seven Arts had specifically pleaded a continuing cause of action arising from the announcement of Hera Pheri 3. Therefore, the suit could not be rejected at the preliminary stage as barred by limitation.
Regarding the challenge to Seven Arts’ status as assignee, the Court observed that at the stage of considering rejection of a plaint, the inquiry is limited to whether the plaint discloses a cause of action. The Court clarified that it was not required at that stage to conclusively determine whether the plaintiff would ultimately succeed in proving its rights.
On the effect of K.I. Siddique’s death, the Court referred to Section 202 of the Indian Contract Act and observed that where a power of attorney is coupled with interest, it may not automatically stand revoked by the death of the principal. The Court also relied on a Division Bench precedent holding that death of one among several principals does not necessarily terminate the agency arrangement.
As regards the alleged invalidity of the assignment under Section 19 of the Copyright Act, the Court held that such issues required detailed examination and could not be conclusively decided at the stage of plaint rejection.
The Court observed that Nadiadwala had conflated the requirement of disclosing a cause of action with proving the merits of the claim itself.
Decision
The Madras High Court dismissed the application seeking rejection of the plaint filed by Firoz Nadiadwala. The Court permitted the copyright infringement suit filed by Seven Arts International Limited to proceed and declined to interfere at the threshold stage. No order as to costs was passed.
In this case the appellant was represented by Advocate Nithyaesh Natraj for M/s Vaibhav R. Venkatesh. Meanwhile the respondent was represented by Advocate Arun C.Mohan.