The Madras High Court has refused to restrain the release and exploitation of the Ajay Devgn-starrer Hindi version of Drishyam 3, holding that Rajkumar Theatres has not shown at this interim stage that it continues to hold exclusive or joint Hindi remake rights, while leaving the question of ownership open.
Chennai: The Madras High Court has refused to restrain the release and exploitation of the Ajay Devgn-starrer Hindi version of Drishyam 3 in a dispute over who holds the Hindi remake rights to the second sequel of the Malayalam film [Rajkumar Theatres Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s Wide Angle Creations and Others].
Justice K. Govindarajan Thilakavadi, in an order dated October 1, 2026, dismissed an original application filed by Rajkumar Theatres Pvt. Ltd. under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which had sought to block the film’s release anywhere in the world.
What the applicant sought
Rajkumar Theatres, represented by its Director Rajkumar Sethupathy, invoked Section 9(1)(d) of the Act and Order XIV Rule 8 of the Original Side Rules, seeking an injunction against the release and exploitation of the Hindi film, directed by Abhishek Pathak and starring Ajay Devgn and Tabu, through theatres, OTT platforms, satellite television, digital platforms and every other mode, until the proposed arbitration.
It described the relief as protection against infringement of its copyright under Section 62 of the Copyright Act, 1957, arising from an agreement of June 12, 2014 with the first respondent, Wide Angle Creations. The right in question is a limited one: the right to remake the Malayalam film in Hindi and exploit the remake worldwide. The other respondents are Ashirvad Cinemas, director Jeethu Joseph, Star Studio 18, Panorama Studios, Ajay Devgn and Jyoti Deshpande.
Background of the dispute
According to the order, Ashirvad Cinemas produced the Malayalam film in 2013. By an agreement of December 22, 2013 with Ashirvad Cinemas and Jeethu Joseph, the applicant acquired exclusive Telugu remake rights in the original film and its sequels. On the same day, Wide Angle Creations obtained similar rights in Hindi and certain other North Indian languages. The applicant says it funded the entire Rs 50 crore consideration for that assignment and that the two agreed to share the Hindi and North Indian language rights equally, a sharing arrangement recorded in the June 2014 agreement that, it claims, made them equal joint owners of the copyright.
The applicant remade the original film and the first sequel in Telugu. In January 2021, it and Wide Angle Creations jointly issued a no-objection certificate allowing the assignment of the Hindi remake rights of the first sequel alone to a third party. When the second sequel was produced in Malayalam in May 2026 and a Telugu dubbed version was announced for release alongside it, the applicant sued in C.S. No. 144 of 2026 and obtained an interim order, after which the matter was settled out of court.
The applicant then learnt that the Hindi remake of the second sequel had already been made by the same third parties who made the Hindi version of the first sequel, without its knowledge or consent, and that the film was likely to be released on October 2, 2026. It approached the High Court on that basis.
The respondents’ stand
Respondents 2 to 7 resisted the application, contending that it was not one for protection against infringement and that Section 62 of the Copyright Act has no application to a Section 9 petition. They argued that the applicant produced no document establishing a subsisting exclusive right entitling it to restrain the film, which they described as an independently developed Hindi sequel made under the rights assigned to Viacom18 by a 2014 assignment and preserved by 2022 settlement agreements.
Any contractual claim the applicant has under the 2013 agreement, they said, cannot override the Hindi sequel and derivative rights that the applicant itself later assigned. They denied the allegations of theft and patent illegality, pleaded that there is no privity of contract between them and the applicant, and said there was no prima facie case and no irreparable injury.
Why the Court declined interim relief
The Court observed that the order sought would, in substance, prevent the release and exploitation of the Hindi remake throughout the world, with serious consequences for the rights claimed by the respondents and by third parties deriving rights under later arrangements. Before granting such relief, it held, the applicant must place before it clear material establishing a subsisting, enforceable right that is threatened with imminent infringement. On the material before it, that threshold was not met:
“The material presently placed before this Court does not, at this interlocutory stage, establish with sufficient clarity that the applicant continues to possess an exclusive or joint copy right in the Hindi remake rights of ‘Drishyam 3’, particularly in view of the subsequent assignment and settlement documents relied upon the respondents.”
The Court stopped short of deciding either side’s case. The applicant’s contention that the rights acquired in 2013 extended to the second sequel and survived the later transactions, it said, requires examination of the contractual documents and the parties’ subsequent conduct, while the respondents’ contention that the applicant assigned or otherwise dealt with the relevant Hindi and derivative rights is likewise a matter requiring adjudication. Given that the applicant’s asserted rights are seriously disputed on the strength of subsequent documents, the Court was not persuaded that it had laid the foundation for the sweeping restraint it sought, and dismissed the application.
Why The Drishyam 3 Order Matters
The order is an interim-stage ruling, and it does not decide who owns the Hindi remake rights to Drishyam 3. Those rival claims, resting on the 2013 and 2014 agreements, the 2014 assignment to Viacom18 and the 2022 settlement agreements, remain to be adjudicated. What the ruling shows is the standard applied when a worldwide restraint on a film’s release is sought on a copyright and contractual claim: where the applicant’s own rights are disputed on the basis of later assignments and settlements, a court will want clear material of a subsisting right before it blocks a release that affects third parties.
Case Title: Rajkumar Theatres Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s Wide Angle Creations and Others [O.A. (C.D.) No. 1050 of 2026]
Bench: Justice K. Govindarajan Thilakavadi, Madras High Court
Date of Order: October 1, 2026
For the Applicant: K. Ravi, Senior Advocate, instructed by Murugan of M/s Rugan and Arya
For Respondent 1: K. Sharath Chandran, Advocate
For Respondents 2 and 3: Akshaya Ramadurai, Advocate
For Respondent 4: P.S. Raman, Senior Advocate, instructed by Ragul Balaji
For Respondent 5: K. Manoj Menon, Advocate