Madras HC stays ED’s attachment of director Shankar’s properties in Enthiran copyright case
CHENNAI: The Madras High Court on Tuesday stayed the Enforcement Directorate’s (ED) proceedings for provisionally attaching properties worth Rs 10.11 crore belonging to Tamil film director S. Shankar in connection with a copyright infringement complaint related to the story of the Rajinikanth-starrer Enthiran.
A division bench comprising Justices M.S. Ramesh and N. Senthilkumar issued the interim stay order while hearing Shankar’s petitions seeking to quash the ED’s provisional attachment order, which was passed on 17 February 2025 under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
The ED had acted based on a copyright infringement complaint filed in 2011 by writer Arur Tamilnadan, who alleged that Shankar had copied his story Jiguba. The case was filed in a metropolitan magistrate court, citing a violation of Section 63 of the Copyright Act and a criminal complaint under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The ED took note of the complaint and proceeded with the provisional attachment order.
The division bench, however, pointed out that the agency ought not to have taken such action since a single judge of the High Court had, in 2023, stayed proceedings in the scheduled offence.
“The provisional attachment order is based on the allegations made in the civil suit relating to copyright infringement, apart from the allegations in the criminal complaint.
"When this court had taken cognisance of the fact that the civil suit was dismissed and entertained the petition to quash the proceedings relating to the scheduled offence, the respondents ought not to have provisionally attached the properties under the order dated 17 February 2025, more particularly when a stay was in operation for the past three years,” the bench stated in its interim order.
Noting that the question of whether the impugned attachment order could be quashed would be adjudicated later, the bench ruled, “In view of a prima facie case having been made out, there shall be an order of interim stay.”
The court directed the ED to file a counter-affidavit and adjourned the case to 21 April for further hearing.
Senior counsel P.S. Raman, assisted by D. Saikumaran, appeared for Shankar and questioned the rationale behind the ED’s decision to attach the director’s property based on a private complaint by Arur Tamilnadan.
“Even though a single judge had passed orders in favour of Shankar, the ED proceeded to act on the private complaint,” he told the court.
However, the ED’s counsel, N. Cibi Vishnu, argued that the agency was legally permitted to act on complaints from private individuals. “No prejudice has been caused to Shankar through the provisional attachment of the property, and he can explore available legal remedies,” he submitted.