'Why Didn't ED Wait For Outcome Of Complaint?' : Madras High Court Stays ED Attachment Of Director Shankar's Property Over Copyright Dispute

The Madras High Court on Tuesday stayed an order of the Enforcement Directorate provisionally attaching property worth Rs. 10 crore of Tamil filmmaker S Shankar in a copyright infringement case in connection with the 2010 movie 'Enthiran'. The bench of Justice MS Ramesh and Justice N Senthilkumar stayed the provisional attachment order on a plea moved by the Director. The ED had attached the property on February 17 following a complaint by Arur Tamilnadan claiming that Shankar had violated his copyright as the story of the movie was inspired by his story – Jugiba. Since offences under the Copyright Act are scheduled offences under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, the ED had passed the order provisionally attaching the property. It may also be noted that in June 2023, a single judge of the Madras High Court dismissed a civil suit filed by Arur against Shankar, noting that copyright could not be claimed over an idea or a concept. The single judge had noted that there was no evidence available to show that the story of Enthiran was a literal imitation of the story in Jugiba. When the plea was taken up today, Senior Advocate PS Raman argued that the ED's action was arbitrary, especially when the Single judge had already observed there was no violation of the Copyright Act. He also questioned the ED's stand that Shankar had received Rs. 11.5 crore from the project and submitted that the same was untrue. It was argued that Shankar had received the payment from other works and thus ED could not attach the property. The bench also wondered if the ED could take such an action on a complaint by an individual. “Can the ED register cases based on an individual's complaint that a crime has been committed. Why didn't the ED wait for the outcome of the complaint before attaching the property?” the court asked the counsel. To this, ED's counsel Vishnu submitted that based on the ruling in Vijay Madhanlal Choudhary, the ED had powers to take action based on a complaint by an individual. He submitted that no harm had been caused to Shankar due to the ED's action and thus the attachment need not be interfered with. The court directed the ED to file its counter to the plea and adjourned the hearing to April 21. Case Title: S Shankar v. The Deputy DirectorCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 97 Case No: WP 8352 of 2025

'Why Didn't ED Wait For Outcome Of Complaint?' : Madras High Court Stays ED Attachment Of Director Shankar's Property Over Copyright Dispute

Upasana Sajeev

Tags