Ms Rajkumar Theatre Pvt LtdRepresented by its director Mr.Rajkumar Sethupathy v. Aashirvad Cinemas
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
Recording the same, the Suit stands dismissed as being settled out of the Court
Provisions considered
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 O. VII r. 1
Key paragraphs
- Para 33.Panorama Studio22nd Floor, Lotus Signature, Veera Desai Road, Near Country Club, Shastri Nagar, Andheri West, Mumbai 400 102...Respondent(s)PRAYER:- Suit filed under Order IV Rule 1 of O.S.Rules r/w. Order VII Rule 1 of CPC and Section 7 of the Commercial Court Act, 2015 (Act 4…
Judgment
C.S(COMM DIV) No. 144 of 2026__________Page1 of 3IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 18-06-2026CORAMTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABUC.S(COMM DIV) No. 144 of 2026O.A.No.488 of 2026Ms Rajkumar Theatre Pvt LtdRepresented by its director Mr.Rajkumar Sethupathy, 7th Floor, Capital Towers, 555, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 018..Petitioner(s)Vs1.Aashirvad Cinemas Represented by its Proprietor M J Antony59 1047 Valakuzhi, Krishna Swamy Road, Off Chittoor Road, Ernakulam 682 035.
Mr.Jeethu JosephvaliyakandathiMurtholoapuram PO, Elanji, Ernakulam 686 665.
Operative part
Panorama Studio22nd Floor, Lotus Signature, Veera Desai Road, Near Country Club, Shastri Nagar, Andheri West, Mumbai 400 102...Respondent(s)PRAYER:- Suit filed under Order IV Rule 1 of O.S.Rules r/w. Order VII Rule 1 of CPC and Section 7 of the Commercial Court Act, 2015 (Act 4 of 2016) r/w. Section 55 & 62 of the Copyright Act:-
(a) To grant a permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their servants, agents, employees, assignees, licensees and every one claiming under or through the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.S(COMM DIV) No. 144 of 2026__________Page2 of 3defendants from infringing the Plaintiffs exclusive Copyright of remaking and exploiting the subject film Drishyam 3 in Telugu language, starring Mohanlal, Meena, etc., directed by Jeethu Joseph, by releasing the dubbed version of Drishyam 3, in Telugu, anywhere in the World(b) Directing the defendants to pay to the plaintiff the costs of this suit;
(c) Granting such further or other reliefs as this Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case. For Petitioner(s):Mr.MuruganFor M/s.Rugan And AryaFor Respondent(s):Ms.Akshyaya Ramadurai for D1JUDGMENTWhen the matter is taken up for the hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff would submit that the matter had been settled out of Court between the parties and had also made an endorsement to that effect in the Court bundle. 2. Recording the same, the Suit stands dismissed as being settled out of the Court. No costs. Consequently, connected Original Application is also closed. 18-06-2026Index: Yes/NoSpeaking/Non-speaking orderNeutral Citation: Yes/NoGBA https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.S(COMM DIV) No. 144 of 2026__________Page3 of 3K.KUMARESH BABU, J.GBAC.S(COMM DIV) No. 144 of 2026O.A.No.488 of 202618-06-2026
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Recording the same, the Suit stands dismissed as being settled out of the Court
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — O. VII r. 1.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.