THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS (Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction) C.S. (Commercial Division) No. of 2025 Mrs. Muthulakshmi w/o.Veerappan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
(Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction)
C.S. (Commercial Division) No. of 2025
Mrs. Muthulakshmi w/o.Veerappan (Late) No.10, Bhavani Street,
Barathi Nagar,
Taramani,
Chennai – 600 113. …Plaintiff
Vs
M/s. VK Productions
Rep by Mr. Nirmal Saravanaraj,
No.32, First Street,
VRS Nagar,
Maduravoyal,
Chennai – 600 095. …Defendant
PLAINT FILED UNDER ORDER IV RULE 1 OF THE MADRAS HIGH COURT ORIGINAL SIDE RULES R/W SECTION 51, 55 & 62(2) OF THE COPYRIGHT ACT, 1957 READ WITH ORDER VII RULE 1 C.P.C. R/W
SECTION 7 OF THE COMMERCIAL COURTS ACT, 2015 (ACT 4 OF 2016)
The Plaintiff hereinabove, respectfully submit as follows:
The Plaintiff is Mrs. Muthulakshmi W/o. Veerappan (Late), aged about 57 years, having permanent address at No.10, Bhavani Street, Barathi Nagar, Taramani, Chennai – 600 113, do solemnly affirm and sincerely state as follows:
The address of service of all notices and processes of the Plaintiff are that of their counsel Ms. Swetha Sridhar Associates, Swetha Sridhar, Vignesh Kannan, Akshaya.K Advocates, having their office at A1, Ground Floor, Valliammai Appartment, 15/8, Bheema Sena Garden Street, Rangaiah Garden, Mylapore, Chennai- 600 004. Phone Number- 9884362615, Email: advocateswethasridhar@gmail.com
The Defendant is VK Productions, Rep by Mr. Nirmal Saravanaraj, is a production company having it address at No.32, First Street, VRS Nagar, Maduravoyal, Chennai – 600 095.
The address for service of notice and process to the Defendant is stated as above and the suit summon may be served on the defendant at the above address through the Court of Learned Sub Court, Poonamallee.
1. The Plaintiff is the legally wedded wife of Late Mr. Koose Munisamy Veerappan, who demised in the year 2004. He was admittedly regarded as a folk rebel and symbolic figure of resistance in the eyes of several forest-dwelling and local communities, who perceived him as an emblem of defiance against alleged state oppression in matters pertaining to forest rights and livelihood. For the past several years, numerous producers and filmmakers have attempted to portray or adapt the life-story of the Plaintiff’s husband, Late Veerappan. However, at every such instance where a depiction, adaptation, or narration of the Plaintiff’s husband is undertaken, it has been done only upon obtaining the requisite No Objection Certificate (NOC)/Assignment of Rights from the Plaintiff, with whom such rights vest with.
2. The Plaintiff was put to profound shock and grave dismay when she came across a promotional poster of the film titled “Padayaanda Maavera” through a well-wisher. The said poster unmistakably contained the authentic image of her deceased husband, Late Veerappan, alongside another individual/artist deliberately styled and dressed with Veerappan’s distinctive and trademark moustache, attire, and persona, thereby portraying him as the central theme. The same has been published and widely disseminated across publicity platforms, print media, and digital domains, giving rise to grave public misconception and wrongful association. Pertinently, all these acts have been committed by the Defendant without prior permission, license, consent, or authorization from the Plaintiff.
3. The Plaintiff states that she has no knowledge or information as to why the Defendants have unlawfully incorporated the image of her husband in the impugned poster. She is equally unaware of the storyline of the said movie or the manner in which her husband’s character has been depicted therein. The use and exploitation of the personality rights, image, likeness, and publicity value of her husband form an exclusive proprietary entitlement vesting solely with the Plaintiff, and no person whosoever is entitled to exploit the same without her due authorization.
4. The Plaintiff submits that the actions of the Defendant constitute a brazen, wilful, and unlawful infringement of her proprietary rights, including her registered Trademark under class 41 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. Furthermore, the wrongful and unauthorized use of her husband’s image, likeness, and persona in promotional campaigns and publicity materials has resulted and will continue to result in irretrievable dilution of reputation, loss of goodwill, and irreparable harm to the unique legacy associated with him, who, notwithstanding his controversial past, continues to be revered by several communities as an inspiration and a cultural figurehead.
5. The Plaintiff further submits that Section 14 of the Copyright Act, 1957 defines the exclusive rights of the copyright owner, while Section 51 renders any unauthorized exploitation an infringement, and Section 55 provides the remedies available for such infringement. Additionally, Section 57 protects the author’s moral rights, including the right to preserve the integrity and reputation attached to such work. Thus, the Defendants’ movie poster showcasing and capitalizing upon the image of the Plaintiff’s late husband constitutes an unambiguous infringement of the Plaintiff’s copyright and personality rights. This deliberate action of the Defendant in utilizing her husband’s persona without consent demonstrates nothing but a calculated and mala fide intent to exploit the Plaintiff’s proprietary rights for illicit commercial gain and publicity, which is wholly detrimental to the legitimate interests of the Plaintiff.
6. The Plaintiff further submits that by the aforesaid actions, the Plaintiff has been subjected to substantial injury, mental agony, and reputational damage, as the Defendants have blatantly used the Plaintiff’s husband’s image across print, visual, and digital publicity platforms. Though the monetary damages arising from the
Defendants’ misdeeds are incalculable in quantum and colossal in nature, therefore seeking a relief of the removal and recall of the Plaintiff’s husband’s image/persona from all publicity, print, digital, and promotional materials relating to the impugned film. In is not out of place to mention that the unauthorized usage by the defendant has severe impact on the plaintiff’s earnings and late Mr. Veerappan’s reputation.
7. The present suit is instituted seeking reliefs under various sections of the Trade Marks Act, 1999; and under the common law of passing off, and by virtue of Section 62 of the Copyright Act, 1957, and Section 2(1)(c)(xvii) read with the first proviso to Section 7 of the Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Act, 2015 (Act 4 of 2016), the same is maintainable before the Commercial Division of this Hon’ble High Court.
8. The Plaintiff further submits that the right to publicity, privacy, dignity, and reputation is an integral part of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. By exploiting the image and persona of the Plaintiff’s husband without consent, the Defendants have violated the Plaintiff’s constitutional rights in addition to statutory protections.
9. The Plaintiff submits that releasing the impugned movie by depicting or alluding to the Plaintiff’s husband without authorization would inevitably result in the public directly associating the said movie with the Plaintiff’s husband, thereby prejudicing his reputation and tarnishing the goodwill vested in his persona. The Defendants, being fully aware that the Plaintiff holds the proprietary rights relating to Late Mr. Veerappan, have nevertheless flouted the mandate of law and trampled upon the
Plaintiff’s exclusive rights by unlawfully using his image and name. The Plaintiff has further come to learn that the Defendants are misusing his personality and image to raise funds, generate publicity, and commercially exploit the goodwill associated with him, which conduct is wholly mala fide, unjust, and unsustainable in law.
10. The cause of action for the present suit first arose on or about in the 13th of september 2025, when the Plaintiff, through a well-wisher, came across the promotional poster of the film titled “Padayaanda Maavera” in taramani area where the poster which prominently contained the image of the Plaintiff’s deceased husband, Late Mr. Koose Munisamy Veerappan, alongside another personality/artist styled to replicate his distinctive likeness and persona. The cause of action further continues from the date on which the Defendants published, circulated, and disseminated the impugned poster and related promotional material across print, visual, and digital media, thereby infringing the Plaintiff’s statutory and common law rights. The cause of action is continuing in nature so long as the impugned poster and promotional materials remain in circulation and until the Defendants desist from unauthorized exploitation of the Plaintiff’s husband’s image, likeness, personality rights, and registered trademarks. Hence, this Hon’ble Court has the jurisdiction to adjudicate the present suit.
11. This Hon’ble Court has jurisdiction to entertain, try and dispose of the present suit under Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, as the Plaintiff carries on her lawful activities within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court. Further, under Section 62 of the Copyright Act, 1957, the Plaintiff, being the owner of the copyright and personality rights in question, is entitled to institute the present suit. The present dispute being one arising out of infringement of intellectual property rights, namely trademarks, copyright, and publicity/personality rights, squarely falls within the ambit of Section 2(1)(c)(xvii) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015; and by virtue of the first proviso to Section 7 of the said Act, this Hon’ble Court, exercising Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction, has the competence to adjudicate the matter.
Accordingly, this Hon’ble Court is vested with territorial, pecuniary, and subjectmatter jurisdiction to entertain the present suit.
12. It is submitted that the present suit is filed seeking urgent interim relief, temporary injunction and other urgent reliefs and thus it is exempt from the requirement to exhaust pre-institution mediation under section 12 A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. As the said film titled “Padayaanda Maavera” is to be released on 19.09.2025.
13. For the purpose of jurisdiction, the Plaintiff for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction, values the reliefs (a) as per the provisions contained under Section 27(b) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation, 1955; and values the relief (b) as per the provisions contained under Section 24(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation, 1955 as follows:
a. Prayer A at Rs. 10,000 (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) and the entitlement of the plaintiff being Rs.300 (Rupees Three hundred only)
b. Prayer B at Rs. 1000 (Rupees Thousand Only) and the entitlement of the plaintiff being Rs. 30 (Rupees thirty Only)
The Plaintiff pays a sum of Rs. 330/- (Rupees three hundred and thirty Only) as court fee for Prayer A and B. The Plaintiff undertakes to pay the difference in court fees, if any, when the value is determined and when a decree is passed.
14. It is therefore most humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to grant a judgement and decree in favour of the Plaintiff with the following:
a. Grant a decree of permanent injunction restraining the Defendant, their men, agents, assigns, representatives or any other person claiming under them, from in any manner whatsoever reproducing, publishing, printing, circulating, communicating, displaying, promoting or exploiting the image, likeness, personality traits, name, or distinctive getup of Late Mr. Koose Munisamy Veerappan in connection with the film titled
“Padayaanda Maavera” or any other film, series, or promotional material, without the express prior authorization of the Plaintiff;
b. Grant a decree of mandatory injunction directing the Defendant to forthwith recall, withdraw, seize, and deliver up to the Plaintiff or to such authority as this Hon’ble Court may direct, all posters, publicity material, trailers, teasers, and digital content containing the image, likeness, or portrayal of Late Mr. Veerappan, which are unauthorizedly in circulation.
c. Award the costs of the present proceedings to the Plaintiff.
d. Pass such further or other orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interests of justice and equity.
Dated at Chennai on this 17th day of September, 2025
COUNSEL FOR THE PLAINTIFF PLAINTIFF
VERIFICATION
I, Muthulakshmi w/o. Veerappan(late), aged about 57 years, having address at at No.10, Bhavani Street, Barathi Nagar, Taramani, Chennai – 600 113, do hereby solemnly affirm that the contents stated in Plaint are true correct to my own knowledge, information and belief.
Verified at Chennai on this the 17th day of September, 2025
PLAINTIFF
LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED UNDER ORDER XI RULE 1(1) OF CPC AS AMMENDED BY ATC 4 OF 2016
S.
No. Date of the
document Description of the document Nature of document
1. 10.02.2024 Trademark Certificate Web Copy
2. Movie Poster Webcopy
3. 16.09.2025 Certificate (Under Section 63
Of The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023
Original Copy
It is certified that the above-mentioned documents are true copy of the original documents.
Dated at Chennai on this the 17th day of September, 2025.
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF PLAINTIFF
LIST OF DOCUMENTS UNDER ORDER XI RULE 1(6) OF CPC
-NIL AT PRESENT-
Dated at Chennai on this 17th day of September, 2025.
PLAINTIFF
VERIFICATION
I, Muthulakshmi w/o. Veerappan (late), aged about 57 years, having address at No.10, Bhavani Street, Barathi Nagar, Taramani, Chennai – 600 113, do hereby solemnly affirm that the contents stated in list of documents are true correct to my own knowledge, information and belief.
Verified at Chennai on this the 17th day of September, 2025
PLAINTIFF
STATEMENT OF REGISTERED ADDRESS OF THE PARTIES UNDER ORDER VI RULE 14(a) OF CPC
PARTIES PARTIES NAME & ADDRESS
PLAINTIFF Mrs. Muthulakshmi w/o.Veerappan (Late) No.10, Bhavani Street,
Barathi Nagar,
Taramani,
Chennai – 600 113.
ADDRESS FOR SERVICE Ms. Swetha Sridhar Associates, Swetha Sridhar, Vignesh Kannan, Akshaya.K Advocates, having their office at A1, Ground Floor, Valliammai Appartment, 15/8, Bheema Sena Garden Street, Rangaiah
Garden, Mylapore, Chennai- 600 004
DEFENDANT M/s. VK Productions
Rep by Mr. Nirmal Saravanaraj,
No.32, First Street,
VRS Nagar,
Maduravoyal,
Chennai – 600 095.
Address for service of the Defendants is as above
Dated at Chennai on this the 17th day of September, 2025.
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF VERIFICATION
I, Muthulakshmi w/o. Veerappan(late), aged about 57 years, having address at at No.10, Bhavani Street, Barathi Nagar, Taramani, Chennai – 600 113, do hereby solemnly affirm that the contents stated in statement of address are true correct to my own knowledge, information and belief.
Verified at Chennai on this the 17th day of September, 2025
PLAINTIFF
MEMO OF VALUATION
Valuation of relief claimed in Prayer A : Rs.10,000
Court fee paid thereon : Rs.300
Valuation of relief claimed in Prayer B : Rs.1000
Court fee paid thereon : Rs.30
Total Suit value : Rs. 10,030
Total Court fee : Rs. 330
Dated at Chennai on this the 17th day of September 2025
COUNSEL FOR THE PLAINTIFF
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE
AT MADRAS
(Original Original Civil Jurisdiction)
C.S.(comercial Division) No. of 2025
Mrs. Muthulakshmi
w/o.Veerappan,
…Plaintiff
-Vs- M/s. VK Productions
Rep by Mr. Nirmal Saravanaraj,
…Defendant
PLAINT FILED UNDER ORDER IV
RULE 1 OF THE MADRAS HIGH
COURT ORIGINAL SIDE RULES R/W
SECTION 51, 55 & 62(2) OF THE COPYRIGHT ACT, 1957
M/s. Swetha Sridhar Associates
Ms.Swetha Sridhar (Ms. 1833/2013)
Mr. Vignesh Kannan (Ms. 4146/2022 Ms. Akshaya.K (Ms.6454/2021)
COUNSEL FOR THE PLAINTIFF
