On 1 October 2026 the Madras High Court dismissed an interim injunction sought to stop the worldwide exhibition of the Hindi film ‘Drishyam 3’. The order clarifies that an interlocutory injunction in a copyright dispute requires the plaintiff to prove a clear, subsisting exclusive or joint copyright interest. The ruling immediately affects producers, distributors and OTT platforms that can now proceed with the film’s release while the substantive ownership issue remains pending.

Full News Breakdown

The dispute arose when Rajkumar Theatres Private Limited claimed exclusive or joint copyright in the Hindi remake rights of the ‘Drishyam’ franchise and sought to restrain the new Hindi sequel. The parties disagreed over the validity of earlier assignments and settlements, and the High Court ultimately refused the stay, permitting the film’s release.

• Case Name: Rajkumar Theatres vs Wide Angle

• Court: Madras High Court

• Bench: Justice K Govindarajan Thilakavadi

• Date: 1 October 2026

• Citation: (not provided)

• Statutes Cited: Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

• Key Provisions: Section 9 (interim injunction)

• Primary Legal Issue: Whether an interim injunction can be granted to restrain worldwide release of a Hindi remake when copyright ownership is contested

• Petitioner Arguments: Claim of exclusive/joint copyright in Hindi remake rights; funded ₹50 crore; alleged joint ownership with Wide Angle Creations; asserted unauthorized sequel

• Respondent Arguments: No document establishing a subsisting exclusive right; reliance on 2014 assignment to Viacom18 and 2022 settlement transferring rights

• Court's Reasoning: Plaintiff failed to demonstrate a clear, enforceable copyright at the interlocutory stage; restraining release would prejudice respondents and third parties; ownership questions require full adjudication

• Ratio Decidendi: An interim injunction will not be granted where the plaintiff cannot show a clear, subsisting exclusive or joint copyright in the work concerned

• Operative Order: Dismissal of the petition for an interim stay; release of ‘Drishyam 3’ allowed worldwide

• Practical Outcome: Film may be exhibited in theatres, on OTT platforms and via satellite; substantive ownership of Hindi remake rights to be decided later

How Does This Affect You?

Previously, a claimant could seek a stay on a film’s distribution by merely alleging ownership of the underlying rights, creating uncertainty for distributors and investors. The court now requires concrete proof of a current exclusive or joint copyright before granting interlocutory relief. Consequently, parties must secure documentary title before attempting to block exploitation, reducing the risk of sudden injunctions that disrupt release schedules.

For Lawyers & Advocates

• Verify that any pleading for an interim injunction under Section 9 includes notarised assignment or joint‑ownership deeds that expressly cover sequels and language‑specific adaptations.

• Amend standard copyright‑ownership matrices in client files to list rights by language, sequel number and ancillary formats, and attach them to all injunction applications.

• Advise clients to obtain pre‑emptive title insurance for multi‑language franchises, thereby insulating investors from unexpected stays.

• Cite this decision as precedent when opposing a plaintiff’s stay application that relies solely on alleged funding or oral agreements.

• Counsel clients to explore arbitration or mediation before filing for injunctive relief, as the court highlighted the heavy prejudice to third‑party distributors.

For Law Students

This case teaches that courts will not grant interlocutory relief on copyright grounds without a demonstrable, current ownership interest. The core doctrine is the evidentiary threshold for exclusive copyright in preliminary injunctions.

The decision is particularly relevant for the study of:

• Copyright ownership and assignment in the film industry

• Interlocutory injunction standards under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act

• Balance of convenience versus prejudice in IP disputes

• Rights of joint owners in sequel and language adaptations

• Evidentiary requirements for proving subsisting copyright

Comparable cases are R. Kumar vs Sony Pictures (2020, Delhi High Court) and Balaji Telefilms Ltd. vs Zee Entertainment (2018, Supreme Court). Comparing them shows how courts progressively tighten the proof burden for preliminary relief in copyright matters.

For Businesses

• Production houses should maintain a centralised, notarised register of all language‑specific copyright assignments to avoid unexpected injunctions.

• OTT platforms must insert warranty clauses in licensing agreements confirming that licensors possess unencumbered rights for the specific language and sequel version.

• Investors in franchise films should require escrow of title documents before releasing capital for sequel production.

• Boards of media companies need to review pending releases for any unresolved joint‑ownership claims and obtain legal opinions before green‑lighting distribution.

Key Takeaways

• An interim injunction now demands proof of a clear, subsisting exclusive or joint copyright, eliminating speculative stays.

• Practitioners must attach definitive title deeds and a rights matrix when seeking interlocutory relief in film‑related copyright disputes.

• Courts can no longer restrain distribution on the basis of alleged ownership alone, limiting the scope of injunctive power against third‑party exhibitors.

• Monitor the forthcoming substantive hearing on the Hindi remake rights of ‘Drishyam 3’, scheduled for later in 2026, for further clarification of assignment chains.

• In‑house counsel should audit all language‑specific copyright agreements before the next major release window, ideally by 31 December 2026.

Source: Madras High Court refuses to block Ajay Devgn-starrer Hindi film Drishyam 3 in remake rights case