Madras High Court injuncts use of Vinnaithaandi Varuvaayaa scenes, songs in Aaromaley movie

The Madras High Court on Wednesday (November 19, 2025) restrained the producers of the newly released Tamil movie Aaromaley from using scenes and background music from actor Simbu alias Silambarasan and Trisha starrer 2010 blockbuster movie Vinnaithaandi Varuvaayaa (VTV).

Justice N. Senthilkumar granted the interim injunction following a copyright infringement suit filed by RS Infotainment, the producer of the 2010 movie helmed by acclaimed director Gautham Vasudeva Menon, against Mini Studio LLP, the producer of Aaromaley.

The plaintiff’s counsel Ramesh Ganapathy told the court that RS Infotainment was a prominent production house that had many critically acclaimed movies such as Ko, Ko2, Viduthalai part I and Viduthalai part 2 in its portfolio and was at present producing actor Soori starrer Mandaadi.

He stated his client had produced VTV in collaboration with Escape Artists Motion Pictures under a 2009 joint venture agreement and therefore, holds all rights, including the right for reproduction, adaptation, and public communication, under Sections 14 and 17 of the Copyright Act, 1957.

The court was also told that VTV was such a cult movie that it got re-released on February 5, 2022 and was exhibited at PVR INOX multiplex at VR shopping mall in Anna Nagar, Chennai for over 1,400 days. He accused the producers of Aaromaley of having used scenes and background music from VTV unauthorisedly.

Stating that Aaromaley was released in theatres on November 7 and was expected to make to be made available on the OTT platform too shortly, the plaintiff inisisted on granting the interim injunction, restraining the use of the scenes and background music of VTV, against Hotstar too.

“The unauthorised use of the plaintiff’s work not only violates the plaintiff’s economic rights (as set out under Section 14 of the Copyright Act) but also undermines his moral rights (under Section 57 of the Act) by modifying, adapting, or presenting his work in ways that may conflict with the original artistic vision,” the plaint read.

It also went on to state: “The defendant’s refusal to halt these activities or negotiate proper licensing demonstrates bad faith and a clear intent to infringe upon the plaintiff’s rights. This ongoing infringement warrants immediate legal action to protect the plaintiff’s statutory and moral rights under the Copyright Act.”