In a relief for Tamil film director S Shankar, the Madras high court on Tuesday stayed the Enforcement Directorate’s (ED) order passed on February 17 that allowed provisionally attaching three of his properties of worth more than ₹10 crore over a copyright dispute under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
The bench of justice MS Ramesh and justice N Senthilkumar stayed the ED’s order based on a plea moved by Shankar. The court directed the ED to file its counter to the plea and adjourned the hearing to April 21.
The ED had taken action against a plea by writer Aarur Tamilnadan filed in Chennai’s Egmore magistrate court claiming that Shankar‘s Tamil blockbuster Enthiran (starring Rajinikanth and Aishwarya Rai) which released in 2010 was copied from his story – Jugiba.
Since offences under the Copyright Act are scheduled offences under the PMLA, the ED had passed the order. “Can the ED register cases based on an individual’s complaint that a crime has been committed,” the court asked. “Why didn’t the ED wait for the outcome of the complaint before attaching the property?”
In June 2023, a single judge bench of the high court dismissed a plea filed by Tamilnadan against Shankar, observing that there was no evidence available of a copyright and that it could not be claimed over an idea or a concept. The court observed that when this suit has been dismissed and another criminal complaint on the matter was stayed so ED officials need not have attached the properties. “The provisional attachment order should not have been issued .. particularly when the stay against the criminal complaint was in operation for the past three years.”
{{/usCountry}}In June 2023, a single judge bench of the high court dismissed a plea filed by Tamilnadan against Shankar, observing that there was no evidence available of a copyright and that it could not be claimed over an idea or a concept. The court observed that when this suit has been dismissed and another criminal complaint on the matter was stayed so ED officials need not have attached the properties. “The provisional attachment order should not have been issued .. particularly when the stay against the criminal complaint was in operation for the past three years.”
{{/usCountry}}