In Firoz A Nadiadwala vs Seven Arts International Limited decided on 24 April 2026, in Application No.1827 of 2026 in C.S. (Comm Div) No.267 of 2025, bearing Neutral Citation 2026:MHC:1658, the High Court of Judicature at Madras through Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy dismissed an application seeking rejection of a copyright infringement plaint relating to remake and derivative rights connected with the Malayalam films “Ramji Rao Speaking” and “Mannar Mathai Speaking.” The dispute arose after Seven Arts International Limited alleged infringement of remake and sequel rights concerning the “Hera Pheri” film franchise. The defendant argued that the suit was barred by limitation, that the assignment agreement dated 12.05.2022 did not validly confer rights upon the plaintiff company, and that the death of one of the principals revoked the power of attorney under Section 201 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. The Court held that while deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the Court is only required to examine whether the plaint discloses a cause of action and not whether the plaintiff will ultimately succeed on merits. The Court observed that limitation was a mixed question of fact and law and that the plaintiff’s allegation of continuing infringement through the proposed production of “Hera Pheri 3” could not be rejected at the threshold. The Court further held that questions regarding validity of assignment under Section 19 of the Copyright Act, interpretation of the power of attorney, and effect of death of one of the principals required detailed adjudication during trial and could not justify rejection of the plaint at the preliminary stage. Consequently, the application for rejection of plaint was dismissed and the copyright suit was permitted to proceed further.
Disclaimer: Donot treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain subjective errors.
Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi
#MadrasHighCourt, #CopyrightInfringement, #HeraPheri3, #FirozANadiadwala, #SevenArtsInternational, #RemakeRights, #FilmCopyright, #CopyrightAct1957, #Order7Rule11CPC, #IntellectualPropertyLaw, #EntertainmentLaw, #AssignmentAgreement, #DerivativeRights, #IndianCinemaLaw, #JusticeSenthilkumarRamamoorthy, #LegalNewsIndia, #FilmLitigation, #CommercialSuit, #IPLitigation, #PowerOfAttorney, #IPUpdate, #AdvocateAjayAmitabhSuman, #IPAdjutor
====
Madras High Court Refuses to Reject Copyright Suit in Hera Pheri Remake Rights Dispute
Introduction
The judgment delivered by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Firoz A Nadiadwala vs Seven Arts International Limited is an important decision concerning copyright assignment, remake rights in cinematographic films, and the scope of rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The dispute arose in relation to remake and derivative rights connected with the Malayalam cult films “Ramji Rao Speaking” and “Mannar Mathai Speaking,” which later inspired the highly successful Hindi film franchise “Hera Pheri.”
The judgment delivered on 24 April 2026 by Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy clarifies that at the stage of considering an application for rejection of plaint, the Court is only required to determine whether the plaint discloses a cause of action and not whether the plaintiff will ultimately succeed in proving its claims. The Court also examined issues relating to limitation, assignment of copyright under Section 19 of the Copyright Act, 1957, powers of attorney coupled with interest under the Indian Contract Act, 1872, and the legal effect of death of one of several principals in an agency arrangement.
The ruling is significant for the entertainment and film industry because disputes over remake rights, sequel rights, adaptations, and derivative works have become increasingly common with the commercial expansion of film franchises and OTT exploitation. The decision also demonstrates judicial caution against dismissing intellectual property disputes at the threshold stage without full trial.
Factual and Procedural Background
The dispute relates to the Malayalam films “Ramji Rao Speaking” and “Mannar Mathai Speaking,” which acquired substantial popularity and later inspired the Hindi remake “Hera Pheri” released in 2000 and its sequel “Phir Hera Pheri” released in 2006.
The plaintiff, Seven Arts International Limited, claimed that by virtue of an Assignment Agreement dated 12 May 2022, it acquired remake rights and derivative rights including rights to create sequels, prequels, spin-offs, and adaptations in Hindi and other North Indian languages in relation to the original Malayalam films.
The assignment agreement was allegedly executed between original screenplay authors K.I. Siddique and M. Paul Michael, together with producer Mani C. Kappan, and G.P. Vijayakumar, Managing Director of Seven Arts International Limited.
Subsequently, disputes arose concerning the proposed production of “Hera Pheri 3.” The plaintiff alleged that the defendant, film producer Firoz A. Nadiadwala, was infringing the plaintiff’s copyright and derivative rights in relation to the film franchise.
A commercial suit was therefore instituted before the Madras High Court seeking remedies for copyright infringement. In response, the defendant filed Application No.1827 of 2026 under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) CPC seeking rejection of the plaint on the grounds that it disclosed no cause of action and was barred by law.
The application was heard by Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy.
Dispute Before the Court
The principal dispute before the Court was whether the plaint deserved to be rejected at the threshold under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
The defendant argued that the plaint failed to disclose a valid cause of action because the assignment agreement did not actually confer enforceable rights upon Seven Arts International Limited. It was contended that the assignment agreement identified G.P. Vijayakumar personally as the assignee and not the company itself. Therefore, according to the defendant, the plaintiff company lacked locus standi to sue.
The defendant further argued that the suit was barred by limitation because the alleged remake films “Hera Pheri” and “Phir Hera Pheri” had already been released years earlier in 2000 and 2006 respectively. It was submitted that the present proceedings had been instituted after an inordinate delay.
The defendant also challenged the validity of the assignment agreement under Section 19 of the Copyright Act, 1957. It was argued that the agreement imposed conditions and obligations upon the assignors and therefore did not constitute a valid statutory assignment.
An additional issue arose because one of the original assignors, K.I. Siddique, had passed away on 8 August 2023. The defendant contended that the power of attorney executed in favour of G.P. Vijayakumar stood automatically revoked under Section 201 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 upon the death of one of the principals.
The plaintiff, however, argued that the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC required the Court to assume the averments in the plaint to be true. It was submitted that the issue of limitation involved mixed questions of fact and law and could not be conclusively decided at the threshold stage. The plaintiff further argued that the production of “Hera Pheri 3” constituted a continuing cause of action.
Reasoning and Analysis of the Judge
Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy undertook a detailed analysis of the scope of Order VII Rule 11 CPC and repeatedly emphasized that the Court must only determine whether the plaint discloses a cause of action and not whether the plaintiff is likely to ultimately succeed in the suit.
The Court observed that paragraph 17 of the plaint specifically referred to the execution of the assignment agreement dated 12 May 2022 and also referred to a cease-and-desist notice issued on 27 December 2024 in relation to the announcement of “Hera Pheri 3.” Since the plaint asserted that the cause of action was continuing and recurring, the Court held that limitation could not be conclusively determined at the preliminary stage.
The Court thus accepted the plaintiff’s argument that limitation in the present case was a mixed question of law and fact requiring evidence and adjudication during trial.
The Court next considered the argument that Seven Arts International Limited was not a party to the assignment agreement. The defendant relied upon the principle that a company is a separate juristic entity distinct from its directors and officers.
However, the Court carefully examined the plaint and noted that the assignment agreement described G.P. Vijayakumar as Managing Director of Seven Arts International Limited. The plaint specifically asserted that the plaintiff company had acquired remake and derivative rights under the assignment agreement.
Justice Ramamoorthy held that for purposes of Order VII Rule 11 CPC, such assertions must be presumed to be correct. Whether the plaintiff would ultimately succeed in proving the assignment was a matter for trial and not a ground for rejection of plaint.
The Court then examined the defendant’s argument that the assignment agreement was invalid under Section 19 of the Copyright Act, 1957.
Section 19 of the Copyright Act prescribes the mode and requirements for valid assignment of copyright. The defendant argued that Clauses 5 and 6 of the agreement imposed contingent obligations and therefore the agreement did not qualify as a statutory assignment.
Clause 5 allegedly required the assignors to initiate legal proceedings against third parties, while Clause 6 provided that only token consideration had been paid and the remaining consideration was contingent upon fulfilment of certain obligations.
The Court refused to enter into a conclusive determination regarding validity of the assignment at the stage of Order VII Rule 11 CPC. Justice Ramamoorthy held that such issues involve examination of contractual rights and obligations and require full adjudication either during final disposal of the suit or in appropriate proceedings where evidence can be considered.
The Court observed that Section 55 of the Copyright Act permits the owner or assignee of copyright to seek remedies for infringement. Since the plaint asserted that the plaintiff was the assignee, the Court held that the plaint disclosed a sufficient cause of action.
The judgment also contains an important discussion on powers of attorney and agency law under Sections 201 and 202 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872.
The defendant argued that because one of the principals, K.I. Siddique, had died, the power of attorney automatically stood revoked under Section 201 of the Contract Act.
The Court, however, referred to Section 202 of the Contract Act which deals with “agency coupled with interest.” Section 202 provides that where the agent has an interest in the subject matter of the agency, the agency cannot ordinarily be terminated to the prejudice of such interest even by death of the principal.
The Court reproduced Illustration (a) to Section 202, which explains that where an agent has authority to sell property and recover debts from sale proceeds, such authority is not terminated by death of the principal.
Justice Ramamoorthy held that the assignment agreement and power of attorney required joint examination to determine whether the agency was coupled with interest. Such determination could not properly be made at the preliminary stage.
The Court also discussed the Division Bench judgment of the Madras High Court in K.A. Meeran Mohideen vs Sheik Amjad reported in 2024 (5) CTC 613. In that case, the Division Bench held that death of one of several principals does not necessarily terminate a contract of agency.
The Court relied upon this precedent to reject the defendant’s argument that the death of one assignor automatically extinguished all rights flowing from the arrangement.
The defendant relied upon several authorities including T. Arivandandam vs T.V. Satyapal reported in (1977) 4 SCC 467 and S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu vs Jagannath reported in (1994) 1 SCC 1 to argue that frivolous litigation should be rejected at the threshold.
However, the Court distinguished those authorities and observed that the present case involved substantive disputes regarding assignment, copyright ownership, and contractual interpretation, which required adjudication on merits.
Justice Ramamoorthy ultimately concluded that the defendant had attempted to equate “disclosure of cause of action” with “proof of cause of action.” According to the Court, a plaint cannot be rejected merely because the defendant disputes the strength or validity of the plaintiff’s claims.
Final Decision of the Court
The Madras High Court dismissed the application seeking rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
The Court held that none of the objections raised by the defendant justified rejection of the plaint at the threshold stage. The issues relating to validity of assignment, limitation, agency, power of attorney, and enforceability of rights required detailed examination during trial.
The Court therefore permitted the copyright infringement suit relating to remake and sequel rights connected with the “Hera Pheri” franchise to proceed further before the Commercial Division.
Point of Law Settled in the Case
The judgment settles the important principle that while deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the Court is only concerned with whether the plaint discloses a cause of action and not whether the plaintiff can conclusively establish such cause of action.
The ruling further clarifies that disputes relating to validity of copyright assignments under Section 19 of the Copyright Act, limitation in continuing infringement actions, and powers of attorney coupled with interest under Sections 201 and 202 of the Indian Contract Act ordinarily require detailed adjudication and cannot usually be decided summarily at the stage of rejection of plaint.
The decision also reinforces that in intellectual property disputes involving film rights and derivative rights, courts should ordinarily permit matters to proceed to trial where complex contractual and factual issues are involved.
Case Details
Title: Firoz A Nadiadwala Vs Seven Arts International Limited
Date of Order: 24 April 2026
Case Number: Application No.1827 of 2026 in C.S. (Comm Div) No.267 of 2025
Neutral Citation: 2026:MHC:1658
Court: High Court of Judicature at Madras
Hon’ble Judge: Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy
Suggested SEO Titles
Madras High Court Refuses to Reject Hera Pheri Copyright Suit at Preliminary Stage
Hera Pheri 3 Copyright Dispute: Madras High Court on Assignment of Film Rights
Madras High Court Clarifies Scope of Order VII Rule 11 in Copyright Litigation
Seven Arts International Wins Relief in Hera Pheri Remake Rights Dispute
Madras High Court on Copyright Assignment and Remake Rights in Film Industry
Can Copyright Suit Be Rejected at Threshold? Madras High Court Explains Law
Madras High Court Rules on Validity of Copyright Assignment Under Section 19
Hera Pheri Franchise Litigation: Important Copyright Ruling by Madras High Court
Power of Attorney Coupled With Interest Explained in Madras High Court Judgment
Madras High Court Protects Film Remake Rights Suit From Rejection Under CPC
SEO Tags
Madras High Court, Hera Pheri 3, Firoz A Nadiadwala, Seven Arts International, Copyright Infringement, Copyright Assignment, Section 19 Copyright Act, Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, Film Remake Rights, Entertainment Law, Intellectual Property Law, Copyright Litigation, Film Franchise Rights, Derivative Rights, Sequel Rights, Power of Attorney, Indian Contract Act, Agency Coupled With Interest, Commercial Division, Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy, Malayalam Film Rights, Ramji Rao Speaking, Mannar Mathai Speaking, Legal News India, Media and Entertainment Law, Copyright Suit, Continuing Cause of Action, AdvocateAjayAmitabhSuman, IPAdjutor
Headnote
The Madras High Court in Firoz A Nadiadwala vs Seven Arts International Limited held that a plaint in a copyright infringement suit concerning remake and derivative rights in the “Hera Pheri” film franchise cannot be rejected at the threshold under Order VII Rule 11 CPC merely because the defendant disputes the validity of assignment or enforceability of rights. The Court ruled that issues relating to limitation, validity of assignment under Section 19 of the Copyright Act, 1957, and the effect of death of a principal on a power of attorney under Sections 201 and 202 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 involve mixed questions of law and fact requiring detailed adjudication during trial. The Court emphasized that at the stage of rejection of plaint, the Court only examines whether the plaint discloses a cause of action and not whether the plaintiff will ultimately succeed on merits.
Disclaimer: Readers are advised not to treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.
Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi
====
