Madras High Court Refuses To Halt Release Of Parasakthi Movie Over Allegations Of 'Stolen Script'

Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy dismissed an application filed to restrain the release of the movie or continuing to permit its exhibition in theatres and OTT platforms. The court noted that the main prayer was to not permit director Sudha Kongara and others associate their names with the movie, and so the interim relief travelled beyond the scope of the main prayer.

“If the defendants were to agree not to describe the first and second defendants as the writers and the third defendant as the creator of the original concept, as per the relief claimed in the plaint, the plaintiff would not be in a position to stop the screening of the movie. By contrast, the interim relief is to prevent screening of the movie. Since the interim relief travels beyond the scope of the relief claimed in the plaint, request for such interim relief is liable to be rejected,” the court observed.

The court was hearing a plea filed by K V Rajendran, alleging that he was the first to conceptualise the movie. He submitted that on 1st January 2010, he had registered a script titled “Chemmozhi” with the writers' association, and a registration number was also assigned.

Rajendran submitted that since 2012, he had been meeting people for developing the script into a movie and he had also shared the script with producer Salem Dhanasekaran, who in turn shared it with actor Suriya, who was close to Sudha Kongara.

While so, Rajendran said that in 2023, he came across a news article, announcing a new movie of Suriya, directed by Kongara, with the same storyline as that of Chemmozhi.

Rajendran submitted that in January 2025, he had submitted a complaint along with supporting documents to the Secretary and Treasurer of the Writers' Association, but no action had been taken. Later in March 2025, he was told by the association that since the movie's shooting was ongoing in Srilanka, they could not disturb it and asked Rajendran to come back after the shooting was over.

Rajendran argued that the makers of the Parasakthi movie had plagiarised/pirated his story and refused to give any recognition. He added that if the movie were allowed to be released, it would not only cause him irreparable loss but would also affect him mentally and his future prospects.

Rajendran had thus sought to restrain the movie makers from displaying their names as the writers of the movie. He also sought Rs. 1,01,00,000/- as the fee payable to him for the story and a further amount of Rs. 25,000/- from the writers' association for their failure to conduct an enquiry. He also sought an interim direction to restrain the release of the movie.

When the matter was taken up on Friday, counsel for Kongara argued that the interim injunction application was liable to be rejected since no relief had been sought to declare that the defendants had violated Rajendran's copyright. It was thus argued that the scope of interim relief was wider.

It was also argued that even as per Rajendran, he became aware about the movie in 2023, but had instituted the suit only in 2025 and thus, the relief should be declined on the ground of laches.

The court noted that the relief sought in the suit was not to permit Kongara and others from associating/displaying their names in the movie as writers/creators. The interim relief, however, was to restrain the release of the movie. Noting that the interim relief travels beyond the scope of relief claimed in the suit, the court was not inclined to grant the interim relief.

The court also noted that Rajendran became aware about production of the movie in 2023 but had filed the suit in 2025. Thus, the court observed that the balance of convenience was not in favour of Rajendran and he could still claim damages even if the movie is released.

Noting that the Rajendran had not made out a case for grant of interim, the court dismissed the application.

Counsel for Applicants: Mr. M. Purushothaman

Counsel for Respondents: Mr. P. S. Raman, Senior Counsel for Mr.Vijayan Subramanian, Mr. P. H. Arvindh Pandian,Senior Counsel

Case Title: K.V.Rajendran @ Varun Rajendran v. Sudha Kongara and Others

Case No: O.A. Nos.1222 of 2025 and A.No.6458 of 2025 in C.S. (Comm.Div.) No.344 of 2025