Madras High Court Upholds Order Directing Filmmaker Gautham Menon To Repay ₹4.25 Crore To Production Company Over Unmade Movie

The bench of Justice P Velmurugan and Justice K Govindarajan Thilakavadi dismissed an appeal filed by the director and his company after noting that there was no infirmity in the order passed by the single judge.

Background

As per RS Infotainment, it entered into an agreement with Photon (represented by Menon), Menon, and others on November 27, 2008, as per which Infotainment engaged the services of Menon and his company for producing a Tamil movie, described as production No. 6 as it was untitled at the time.

As part of the agreement, Menon and others were to start commence production of the movie on December 10, 2008 and complete the entire production of first print before April 5, 2009 for which Infotainment would pay them Rs 13,50,00,000. As per the agreement, Infotainment paid an advance amount of Rs 2,50,000.

Infotainment's case was that Menon and others did not complete the project even after receiving Rs 4,25,0000 from the production company, thus committing breach of contract. Though a civil suit was initially filed, it was withdrawn with liberty to sue for damages. Following this, the production company approached the High Court where the single judge directed Menon and his company to pay a sum of Rs. 4,25,00,000 with interest at 12% per annum. The single judge had also directed Menon and others to pay a sum of Rs 12,00,000 as costs.

Challenging this, Menon and others filed the present appeal. It was argued that the production company had defaulted in making payments as per schedule which caused uncertainty in continuing with the production of the movie. It was argued that the advance amount paid by the production company was utilised towards advance payment to artists/technicians, promotional activities, scouting location etc.

Later, when the production company failed to make instalments as agreed, artists and others associated with the production backed out, and they were not in a position to continue the production of the movie. It was argued that the movie was half shot and lying in the can.

It was also submitted that the project was later restarted and released as “Nee Thane En Pon Vasantham”.

The court noted that though the appellants had claimed that they had used the money received as advance for commencing the production of the agreed upon movie and produced bills and vouchers, the same were not proved in a manner known to law. The court noted that the engagement of artists was not proved and there was nothing to show that the bills and vouchers were related to the movie in question.

The court thus noted that the appellants had failed to provide any tangible evidence to prove that the film, as agreed upon, had ever commenced. The court also noted that the release of “Nee Thane En Pon Vasantham” movie had no connection with the agreement and the appellants had made a deliberate intention of avoiding the contract.

The court concluded that the parties could not retain the amount of Rs. 4.25 crore received from RS Infotainment without commencing the film and the production company was entitled to claim damages.

Thus, finding no reason to interfere with the order of the single judge, the division bench dismissed Menon and Photon Factory's appeal.

Counsel for Appellant: Mr. A. Abdul Hameed, Senior Advocate for Ms. Anbarasi Rajendran of M/s. AAV Partners

Counsel for Respondents: Mr. V. Anand, Mr. Mohamed Farook

Case Title: M/s. Photon Factory and Another v. M/s. RS Infotainment (P) Ltd

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 128

Case No: O.S.A(CAD).No.65 of 2022