Kishore Kumar filed a suit before the Madras High Court claiming that he was the author, creator, producer, director, and sole copyright owner of the Tamil film MANI. He stated that the film was later censored as MONEY in the name of R R Cine Productions.<\/p>\n
R R Cine Productions and Durairajan denied his claim. They stated that they had produced the film, arranged funds, engaged artists and technicians, completed the film, and obtained the censor certificate.<\/p>\n
Durairajan and R R Cine Productions also filed a connected suit claiming rights over the film. Since both sides claimed to have produced the same film, the court had to decide who qualified as the producer and first owner of copyright in the film.<\/p>\n
Kishore Kumar argued that:<\/p>\n
R R Cine Productions and Durairajan argued that:<\/p>\n
The court started by stating that the real question was not whose name appeared in one document, but who took the initiative and responsibility for making the cinematograph film. The court therefore weighed the documents and oral evidence filed by both sides to arrive at its decision.<\/p>\n
Considering Kishore Kumar\u2019s evidence, the court observed that he had filed agreements with several persons who worked on the film. The court also considered the shooting schedule, ledger, and vouchers, and stated that the ledger entries appeared to have been made during the course of shooting, and that Durairajan did not dispute that the entries related to payments made to persons involved in the production. The court treated this evidence as material and determinative to address issues before it.<\/p>\n
After reviewing the bound script, the court stated that the bound script was a critical document in the film industry. Kishore Kumar had produced the original bound script, and the court found no reason to doubt it. The court also noted that Durairajan claimed to have the bound script, but did not produce it.<\/p>\n
The court next considered the censor certificate, and said that the certificate was strong evidence that the film was completed and viewed by the certification authority. However, the court stated that it was only prima facie evidence as regards the producer. The court therefore refused to treat the censor certificate as conclusive proof of copyright ownership.<\/p>\n
Examining the documents filed by R R Cine Productions and Durairajan, the court observed that some professional service agreements relied upon by them appeared to have been executed by R R Cine Productions as a partnership firm before the partnership came into existence. The court also found that the bank records did not establish the payments claimed by them in the manner argued.<\/p>\n
After considering the full record, the court stated that Kishore Kumar had proved that he took the initiative and responsibility for making MANI, which was censored as MONEY. The court held that he therefore qualified as the producer under Section 2(uu) of the Copyright Act, 1957. As producer, he became the first owner of copyright under Section 17. The court stated that the evidence of R R Cine Productions and Durairajan showed some role in the making of the film, but that role appeared secondary.<\/p>\n
– The court held that Kishore Kumar was the producer of MANI, which was censored as MONEY.
\n– The court also held that Kishore Kumar was the first owner of copyright in the film.
\n– Additionally, the court stated that R R Cine Productions and Durairajan did not prove copyright ownership.
\n– The court also stated that the censor certificate was not conclusive proof of producer status or copyright ownership.
\n– The court restrained R R Cine Productions and Durairajan from exhibiting MANI alias MONEY directly or indirectly.
\n– The court also dismissed the connected suit filed by Durairajan and R R Cine Productions.<\/p>\n
Para 34<\/p>\n
\u201cWhile it constitutes strong evidence that the film was completed and that it was viewed by the Examining Committee, it is no more than prima facie evidence as regards the producer. This piece of evidence is required to be considered with the remaining evidence before drawing conclusions.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Para 37<\/p>\n
\u201cAs discussed earlier, agreements with the hero, heroine, comedian, music composer, dance master, cinematographer and lyricist were filed by Kishore Kumar. These agreements reveal that they were entered into in May 2015 or later.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Para 38<\/p>\n
\u201cGiven the nature of entries, I find that credibility and materiality should be attached thereto especially because such entries appear to have been made contemporaneously in course of shooting.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Para 39<\/p>\n
\u201cDurairajan does not dispute that these entries represent payments made during the course of shooting to persons involved in multiple capacities in the production of the movie.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Para 40<\/p>\n
\u201cAs noticed earlier, Kishore Kumar also filed the original bound script as Ex. P34. This is a critical document in the film industry and on perusal thereof, I find no reason to doubt the authenticity of this document.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Para 40<\/p>\n
\u201cDurairajan asserts that the censor certificate was issued to Rafiq, then sole proprietor, R.R. Cine Productions, and that this is strong evidence of ownership of copyright. This is, however, a single piece of evidence.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Para 41<\/p>\n
\u201cUpon carefully weighing the evidence adduced by the rival claimants for copyright, I conclude that Kishore Kumar has established that he is the person who took the initiative and responsibility for making the film. Hence, he qualifies as the producer of the movie as per Section 2(uu) of the Copyright Act, 1957 and, consequently, the first owner of copyright as per Section 17 thereof.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Para 41<\/p>\n
\u201cExclusive rights to undertake the actions specified in Section 14 of the above enactment therefore accrue to Kishore Kumar. By contrast, while the evidence adduced by the counter parties is indicative of a role in the making of the film, such role appears to be secondary.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Para 42<\/p>\n
\u201cAs a consequence of the conclusion that Kishore Kumar is the producer and owner of the copyright over the film MANI, Kishore Kumar is entitled to a permanent injunction restraining R. R. Cine Productions and Durairajan from exhibiting the movie MANI alias MONEY directly or indirectly.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Case Citation<\/h5>\n
R. Kishore Kumar v. M S R R Cine Productions, C.S. No. 362 of 2016 and C.S. Comm Div No. 237 of 2022, 2026:MHC:1440, Madras High Court, Apr. 8, 2026.<\/p>\n