Aparna Guhan and Aruna Guhan of AVM. File
| Photo Credit: R. Ravindran
The property dispute between the partners of family-owned AVM Productions, one of Tamil Nadu’s oldest film production houses, has reached the Madras High Court, with one of the great granddaughters of the founder A.V. Meiyappan insisting on partitioning the family properties.
Aparna Guhan Shyam, one of the twin daughters of M.S. Guhan, has filed a civil suit in the High Court seeking one-fifth of the share in the family properties. She has also sought a permanent injunction restraining AVM Studios from competing with AVM Productions in the film business.
What is the dispute about?
According to the plaintiff, AVM Productions was a partnership firm in which her paternal grandfather M. Saravanan (popularly known as AVM Saravanan) had 15% share, her father Mr. Guhan had 45% share, and her sister Aruna Guhan and herself had 20% shares each.
Claiming that her father had developed a hostile attitude towards her ever since she married a person from another caste, the plaintiff said, he created a special purpose vehicle (SPV) titled AVM Studios, with him holding 50% shares and her sister as well as her grandfather holding 25% each.
Though the plaintiff was not included as a partner in AVM Studios created for carrying on identical business such as producing feature films, making web series, operating studios and allied activities, its partnership deed stated that all profits and losses from the business would be transferred to AVM Productions.
Fearing that the SPV had been created solely for the purpose of making AVM Productions suffer losses and ultimately shut down, the plaintiff filed an application urging the court to restrain AVM Studios from carrying out any kind of business activity until the disposal of her suit for partition.
When the application was taken up for hearing by Justice R.M.T. Teekaa Raman, it was argued on behalf of Mr. Guhan that AVM Productions had turned into a loss-making company only because of the hyperactivity of the plaintiff who wanted it to produce a movie with her husband as a hero.
It was the policy of the company that none of its family members should act in the movies to be produced by it and therefore, the respondents refused to budge to her demand. She developed animosity against the family because of this and filed the present suit for partition, the respondents said.
The single judge was also told that the family members were constrained to float AVM Studios because the plaintiff refused to cooperate with the conduct of the day-to-day affairs of AVM Productions by refusing to sign the cheques and financial statements on time.
After hearing both sides, Justice Raman on January 10, 2025, granted the interim injunction, as sought for, against AVM Studios. He observed that, otherwise, the plaintiff would be put to hardship if the losses accrued by AVM Studios, in which she was not a partner, were transferred to AVM Productions.
Allowing yet another application filed by the plaintiff, the judge directed her father and sister to activate her official e-mail ID containing the AVM domain name. He arrived at a conclusion that the applicant was entitled to an official e-mail ID in her capacity as a shareholder.
Mr. Guhan has now filed two appeals challenging the interim orders passed by the single judge in favour of his daughter. A Division Bench of Justices S.M. Subramaniam and K. Rajasekar on Friday (February 21, 2025) ordered notices, returnable by three weeks, to Ms. Shyam on the two appeals, and directed the parties to complete their pleadings by then.
Published – February 21, 2025 05:18 pm IST
