Skip to content

The research platform for Indian law — judgements, legislation and the citations between them. Free to search, with the original document behind every result.

A product of LawSathi.

Research

Search Legislation Research tools

Browse

Courts Case types Topics Most-cited judgements Sources

LawSathi

Practice platform Blog

© 2026 LawSathiTerms PrivacyResearch aid, not the official record.

G Saravanan Vs Mr.J.Paramasivam and Anohter — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Home
Madras HC
2025
G Saravanan Vs Mr.J.Paramasivam and AnohterG Saravanan v. Mr.J.Paramasivam and Anohter

Dismissed¶34

G Saravanan v. Mr.J.Paramasivam and Anohter

Madras HC17 Feb 2025C.S(COMM DIV)/15/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court commercial division suit C.S.(Comm. Div.) No.15 of 2025, judged 17.02.2025 by Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy J.; plaintiff G. Saravanan (Smart Film International) vs defendants J. Paramasivam (VJ Combines) and Shanmuga Pandiyan; subject copyright in Tamil film “PADAI THALAIVAN” (cast Shanmuga Pandiyan, Ragava Lawrence; music Ilayaraja; director U. Anbu), exclusive theatrical rights worldwide except India, injunction against theatrical/OTT/satellite release in India; filed under Order IV Rule 1 Original Side Rules, Order VII Rule 1 CPC, Sections 55 and 65 Copyright Act 1957, first proviso to Section 7 Commercial Courts Act 2015; resolved by memorandum of compromise dated 10.02.2025 recording out-of-court settlement; suit dismissed as settled out of Court; refund of court fees to plaintiff; counsel S. Karthikei Balan deleted from order; second defendant formal party; advocates A. Selvendran (D1) and Vijayan Subramanian (D2).

What did the court decide?

Suit dismissed as settled out of Court following the compromise between the plaintiff and the first defendant; plaintiff entitled to refund of court fees. ¶34

Why is it important?

In view of the settlement between the plaintiff and the first defendant, the suit is dismissed as settled out of Court. ¶34

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Suit dismissed as settled out of Court following the compromise between the plaintiff and the first defendant; plaintiff entitled to refund of court fees.

Issue for consideration

Whether the civil suit should be dismissed in view of the out-of-court settlement between the plaintiff and the first defendant recorded in the memorandum of compromise dated 10.02.2025.

Court's answer

In view of the settlement between the plaintiff and the first defendant, the suit is dismissed as settled out of Court.

Ratio / Principle

Consequent on the dismissal as settled out of Court, the plaintiff is entitled to refund of court fees.

Key takeaways

Acceding to the request of the plaintiff's counsel on record, the Registry is directed to delete his name from the order and print only the name of the party.ratio¶28

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

C.S.(Comm. Div.) No.15 of 2025, High Court of Judicature at Madras (Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy J., 17.02.2025): civil suit by G. Saravanan, Proprietor, Smart Film International, against J. Paramasivam, Proprietor, VJ Combines, and Shanmuga Pandiyan, seeking declaration of copyright in the Tamil film “PADAI THALAIVAN” (starring Shanmuga Pandiyan and Ragava Lawrence, music by Ilayaraja, directed by U. Anbu) and permanent injunction against its release in India theatrically, on OTT platforms or satellite television. A memorandum of compromise dated 10.02.2025, signed by the proprietors of the plaintiff and the first defendant but not by their counsel, recorded an out-of-court settlement with the plaintiff agreeing to withdraw the suit; the second defendant was only a formal party. As the plaintiff's counsel on record had not been involved in the compromise and declined to be a party to any order, the Registry was directed to delete his name and print only the party's name. The suit was dismissed as settled out of Court and the plaintiff was held entitled to refund of court fees.

A

C.S.(Comm. Div.) No.15 of 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 17.02.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY

C.S.(Comm. Div.) No.15 of 2025

Mr.G.Saravanan Proprietor, M/s.SMART FILM INTERNATIONAL, No.20, Murugesan Street, T.Nagar, Chennai-600 017.

.. Appellant

Vs.

Mr.J.Paramasivam Sole Proprietor, M/s.VJ Combines, No.5, 3^rd Street, Kambar Nagar, Sathya Garden, Saligramam, Chennai-600 093.

Mr.Shanmuga Pandiyan

.. Respondents

PRAYER : Civil Suit filed under Order IV Rule 1 of the Original Side Rules read with Order VII Rule 1 of CPC read with under Sections 55 and 65 of the Copyright Act 1957 Section 291)(C)(xvii) first proviso to Section 7 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, praying to grant a judgment and decree on the following terms:-

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

1/5

C.S.(Comm. Div.) No.15 of 2025

A. To declare that the Plaintiff is the copyright holder of the Tamil film titled “ PADAI THALAIVAN ” starring Shanmuga Pandiyan, Ragava Lawrence, with music composed by Ilayaraja and directed by Mr.U.Anbu, including but not limited to the Exclusive Theatrical Rights over the entire world except India and have the non-exclusive satellite rights as mentioned therein along with other rights etc.,

B. To permanent injunction restraining the Defendants jointly or severally or their men, agents, assignees, licensees or any person acting through or under them from releasing the Tamil Film “ PADAI THALAIVAN ”, starring Shanmuga Pandiyan, Ragava Lawrence, with music composed by Ilayaraja and directed by Mr.U.Anbu, through direct theatrical release within the territory of India or through any OTT platforms or any Satellite Television.

C. To direct the Defendants jointly and severally to pay the costs of the suit.

For Plaintiff : Mr.G.Saravanan, Party-in-Person

For Defendants : Mr.A.Selvendran for D1

Mr.Vijayan Subramanian for D2

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

2/5

C.S.(Comm. Div.) No.15 of 2025

JUDGMENT

A memorandum of compromise dated 10.02.2025 has been placed on record. This document is signed by Mr.G.Saravanan, Proprietor, Smart Film International, and Mr.J.Paramasivam, Proprietor, VJ Combines. The document does not bear the signature of learned counsel for the plaintiff or learned counsel for the first defendant.

Since the memorandum of compromise was executed without his involvement, Mr.S.Karthikei Balan, learned counsel on record for the plaintiff, submits that he does not want to be a party to any order in the matter. By acceding to his request, the Registry is directed to delete his name in the order and print only the name of the party.

On perusal of the memorandum of compromise, it is recorded therein that the plaintiff and the first defendant have entered into an out of Court settlement and that the plaintiff has, consequently, agreed to withdraw the suit as settled out of Court.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

3/5

C.S.(Comm. Div.) No.15 of 2025

It is further stated therein that the second defendant is only a formal party.

In view of the settlement between the the plaintiff and the first defendant, the suit is dismissed as settled out of Court. Consequently, the plaintiff is entitled to refund of court fees.

17.02.2025

kal

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

4/5

C.S.(Comm. Div.) No.15 of 2025

SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY J.

kal

C.S.(Comm. Div.) No.15 of 2025

17.02.2025

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

5/5

Issues for consideration

1 issue framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the civil suit should be dismissed in view of the out-of-court settlement between the plaintiff and the first defendant recorded in the memorandum of compromise dated 10.02.2025.medium confidence¶34
The court held
In view of the settlement between the plaintiff and the first defendant, the suit is dismissed as settled out of Court.ratio¶34

Statutes considered

5 provisions across 4 enactments

AI extract

Original Side RulesOrder IV Rule 1¶13
CPCOrder VII Rule 1¶13
Copyright Act 1957Sections 55 and 65¶13 291)(C)(xvii)¶13
Commercial Courts Act, 2015first proviso to Section 7¶13

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Prior proceeding
A memorandum of compromise dated 10.02.2025, signed by the proprietors of Smart Film International (plaintiff) and VJ Combines (first defendant) but bearing no signatures of counsel for either side, was placed on record.¶27
Prior proceeding
The learned counsel on record for the plaintiff, not having been involved in executing the compromise, submitted that he did not wish to be a party to any order; the court acceded and directed the Registry to delete his name.¶28
Prior proceeding
The compromise memorandum records that the plaintiff and the first defendant entered into an out-of-court settlement, with the plaintiff agreeing to withdraw the suit.¶29
Prior proceeding
The second defendant is recorded in the compromise memorandum as only a formal party.¶33

Parties & counsel

AI extract

appellant
Mr.G.Saravanan, Proprietor, M/s.SMART FILM INTERNATIONAL¶7
G.Saravanan, S.Karthikei Balan
respondent
Mr.J.Paramasivam, Sole Proprietor, M/s.VJ Combines¶10
A.Selvendran
respondent
Mr.Shanmuga Pandiyan¶11
Vijayan Subramanian

Coram

AI extract

SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHYauthor¶5

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Madras HC
Decided on: 17 Feb 2025 · February
Registered: 9 Jan 2025
Case no.: C.S(COMM DIV)/15/2025
CNR: HCMA010081122025
Bench: Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy
Disposal: DISMISSED AS SETTLED OUT OF COURT
Case type: C.S.(Comm. Div.)

Similar cases

Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy

The Official Liquidator Vs nil
14 Feb 2025
The Official Liquidator, Vs nil
14 Feb 2025
A.Venkat Rao and 7 Others Vs P.Jayaraman and 5 Others
14 Feb 2025
Kishore Kumar Vs Awesome Builders (p) Limited
17 Feb 2025
V Ashok Kumar Vs Awesome Builders (p) Limited
17 Feb 2025
Mr.Jigar Mahendra Sheth, Vs Sucram Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd.
17 Feb 2025

Cite this judgement

G Saravanan v. Mr.J.Paramasivam and Anohter, C.S(COMM DIV)/15/2025 (MAD), decided on 17 February 2025.

The Madras High Court publishes no neutral citation for this judgement — cite it by case number and date of decision.

Statutes5

Original Side RulesOrder IV Rule 1
CPCOrder VII Rule 1
Copyright Act 1957Sections 55 and 65 · 291)(C)(xvii)
Commercial Courts Act, 2015first proviso to Section 7

View all statutes

Procedural history4

A memorandum of compromise dated 10.02.2025, signed by the proprietors of Smart Film International (plaintiff) and VJ Combines (first defendant) but bearing no signatures of counsel for either side, was placed on record.
The learned counsel on record for the plaintiff, not having been involved in executing the compromise, submitted that he did not wish to be a party to any order; the court acceded and directed the Registry to delete his name.

View full history

Bench / Coram

SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY

Parties & counsel