Madras High Court Orders Gautham Menon To Repay ₹4.25 Crore Over Film Contract Breach

The Madras High Court in M/s. Photon Factory and Another v. M/s. RS Infotainment (P) Ltd has upheld an order directing filmmaker Gautham Vasudev Menon and his company to repay ₹4.25 crore to a production house for failing to complete a film project.

The division bench comprising Justice P Velmurugan and Justice K Govindarajan Thilakavadi dismissed the appeal filed by Menon and Photon Factory. The Court found no error in the earlier judgment that had directed repayment along with 12% annual interest.

The dispute arose from an agreement dated November 27, 2008. RS Infotainment had engaged Menon and his company to produce a Tamil film, referred to as production No. 6, which was yet to be titled at that time.

As per the agreement, production was to begin on December 10, 2008, and the first print was to be completed by April 5, 2009. The total agreed amount for the project was ₹13.5 crore, with payments to be made in instalments.

The production company claimed that despite receiving ₹4.25 crore, the filmmaker failed to complete the project. This led to allegations of breach of contract. Initially, a civil suit was filed and later withdrawn with liberty to seek damages.

A single judge of the High Court had earlier directed Menon and his company to repay ₹4.25 crore with 12% interest, along with ₹12 lakh as litigation costs. This order was challenged in an appeal.

Menon argued that the production company had defaulted on scheduled payments, which disrupted the project. It was also contended that the funds received were utilised for pre-production activities such as artist payments, location scouting, and promotions.

The appellants further submitted that the project was partially completed but could not proceed due to the withdrawal of artists and technicians. They also argued that the film was later revived and released under a different title.

However, the Court was not convinced by these submissions. It was observed that the bills and vouchers produced were not legally substantiated. There was no reliable proof showing that the expenses were linked to the agreed film.

The Court also found no evidence to establish that the film had actually commenced. It noted that the later release of a different film had no connection with the original agreement.

Importantly, the bench observed that the conduct of the appellants indicated a deliberate attempt to avoid contractual obligations. It held that retaining the amount without completing the agreed work was unjustified.

Accordingly, the Court ruled that RS Infotainment was entitled to recover the amount paid as damages. The appeal was dismissed, reaffirming the earlier judgment in favour of the production company.