Madras High Court Refuses To Lift Interim Ban On YouTube Channels Streaming Raj Television's Tamil Films

Update: 2026-01-07 04:07 GMT
Click the Play button to listen to article
story

The Madras High Court has refused to lift an interim injunction against a YouTuber accused of illegally streaming Tamil films claimed by Raj Television Network Limited. The case centres on the Tamil films 16 Vayathinile, Kalangarai Vilakkam and Kudiyirundha Kovil. Raj Television says it holds exclusive copyright over these films, including their digital and streaming rights. Justice N...

Your free access to Live Law has expired
Please Subscribe for unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments, Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.

The Madras High Court has refused to lift an interim injunction against a YouTuber accused of illegally streaming Tamil films claimed by Raj Television Network Limited.

The case centres on the Tamil films 16 Vayathinile, Kalangarai Vilakkam and Kudiyirundha Kovil. Raj Television says it holds exclusive copyright over these films, including their digital and streaming rights.

Justice N Senthilkumar, in an order passed on December 12, 2025, rejected Palanivel Dhaksnamoorthy's plea to lift an ex parte injunction granted earlier this year in Raj Television's copyright infringement suit.

The court found that Raj Television had shown a strong prima facie case of copyright ownership and unauthorised exploitation of the films.

Palanivel operates four YouTube channels named Tamil Blockbuster, Blockbuster Movies, B4K Music, and Bravo HD Movies.Raj Television alleged that the films were uploaded and streamed on these channels without permission. Palanivel argued that the uploads were backed by written permissions obtained from the original copyright owners.He also questioned Raj Television's title to the films and challenged the valuation of the suit.

Raj Television, however, told the court that it had acquired the rights through a continuous chain of assignments originating from the producers and legal heirs. It relied on agreements executed in 1999 and 2000 by O.K. Films, which had earlier acquired the rights. The broadcaster said the permissions cited by Palanivel were either limited in scope or executed much later.

Accepting this, the court held that later permissions could not override earlier assignments. It also found that continued streaming would cause irreparable harm.

The interim injunction was therefore made absolute. The court also imposed costs of Rs 1 lakh on Palanivel. The amount needs to be paid to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority.

Case Title: Palanivel Dhaksnamoorthy v. Raj Television Network Limited & Anr.

Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 5

Case Number: C.S(COMM DIV) No. 40 of 2025

For Applicant: Advocate G.R. Hari

For Respondent: Advocate Vijayan Subramanian

Click Here To Read/Download Order 

Full View


Tags:    

Similar News