Madras HC orders notices to Atlee, AGS Entertainment in case involving Vijay-starrer ‘Bigil’

The Madras High Court on Tuesday (September 3, 2024) ordered notices to popular film director Atlee, production firm AGS Entertainment Private Limited, and its executive director Archana Kalpathi in a case pertaining to an alleged theft of script for actor Vijay-starrer ‘Bigil.’

The Madras High Court on Tuesday (September 3, 2024) ordered notices to popular film director Atlee, production firm AGS Entertainment Private Limited, and its executive director Archana Kalpathi in a case pertaining to an alleged theft of script for actor Vijay-starrer ‘Bigil.’

A Division Bench of Justices M. Sundar and R. Sakthivel ordered issuance of notices on petitions filed by scriptwriter Amjath Meeran to condone the delay of 73 days in preferring three appeals against the dismissal of his three applications by a single judge.

The petitioner told the Bench that he had filed a civil suit before the High Court in 2019 – when the Tamil movie was released – seeking a declaration that the script of ‘Bigil’ belonged to him. He had sought to appoint an advocate commissioner to quantity the amount of “copying/stealing” allegedly done by the defendants.

Claiming that a script written by him titled ‘Brasil’ had been stolen to make ‘Bigil,’ the petitioner had also sought a direction to the defendants to pay him an initial compensation of ₹10 lakh besides further compensation as determined by the court.

In 2023, the petitioner had filed three applications urging the court to accept additional documents sought to be let in as evidence in his suit and to take on file a 2015 certificate issued by the Writers Guild of America (West) for his script.

The petitioner also sought permission to let in further oral evidence in support of his suit. He told the court that the 2015 certificate was highly essential to prove his case, but he could not produce it in 2019 as it was not with him at the time.

Mr. Atlee, meanwhile, filed a common counter-affidavit to all the three applications, accusing the plaintiff of having filed the case with false, self-serving, and concocted statements. He alleged the case had been filed only to extract money from him.