Madras HC Stays ED Attachment of Director S. Shankar’s ₹10 Crore Property in ‘Enthiran’ PMLA-Copyright Infringement Case [Read Order]

The Madras High Court on Tuesday (11 March, 2025) stayed a prior order passed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) provisionally attaching assets worth ₹10.11 crore belonging to revered Tamil film director S. Shankar.

The timeline of the case follows a 2011 complaint filed by Tamil writer Aarur Tamilnadan, alleging that ‘Enthiran’ was plagiarized from his story ‘Jiguba’. The complaint led to both civil and criminal proceedings, with Tamilnadan initially filing a private complaint before a Chennai magistrate court under Section 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957, and Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for cheating.

Know the complete aspects of tax implications of succession, Click here

Read More: Licence Fees Received Towards Live Transmissions of Cricket Matches Held in Australia Not Taxable in India: ITAT

However, a single judge of the Madras High Court dismissed the civil suit in June 2023, ruling that copyright protection does not extend to ideas or concepts and that there was no evidence of direct copying.

While the civil suit was dismissed, an independent investigation by the Film and Television Institute of India (FTII) found significant narrative similarities between ‘Jiguba’ and ‘Enthiran’. The ED relied on this report to initiate proceedings under Section 63 of the Copyright Act, which has now been classified as a predicate offence under PMLA, enabling attachment of assets.

This marks the first known case where copyright infringement has led to PMLA action, raising critical legal questions about the scope of money laundering laws in intellectual property disputes.

Read More: Person accused u/s 3 of PMLA does not have to be charged with a Scheduled Offense: Supreme court

Despite the civil ruling by the Madras High Court, ED invoked the PMLA, treating the alleged copyright violation as a scheduled offence under the ambit of the PMLA. ED proceeded to attach Shankar’s three immovable properties on February 17, 2025, claiming that the director had received ₹11.5 crore from the ‘Enthiran’ project, which, according to the ED, was tainted due to the alleged plagiarism.

https://x.com/dir_ed/status/1892549234810835155?ref_src=twsrc^tfw|twcamp^tweetembed|twterm^1892549234810835155|twgr^2f226be5133435c00f0e6cb6caddcb41b0d152a4|twcon^s1_&ref_url=https://www.hindustantimes.com/entertainment/tamil-cinema/enthiran-plagiarism-case-ed-attaches-director-shankars-assets-worth-over-10-crore-under-pmla-101740059671625.html

In the present matter, S. Shankar was represented by Senior Advocate P.S. Raman, D. Saikumarran, B.A. Sujay Prasanna, A. Ashok Kumar, N. Ragulagavel Rajesh, and T. Ranjith Raju. P S Raman averred before the court that the ED had acted arbitrarily, especially since the Single-Judge in the previous instance had noted that there was no violation of the Copyright Act, 1957. It was further submitted that the allegations of Shankar having received ₹11.5 crore for ‘Enthiran’ were untrue.

Read More: GST on Popcorn: All You Need to Know About New Tax on Movie Snacks

A division bench of Justices M.S. Ramesh and N. Senthilkumar raised the question whether the ED had the jurisdictional powers to register cases based on an individual’s complaint that a crime has been committed and why ED did not wait for the outcome of the complaint before attaching Shankar’s property.

Read More: PMLA: Supreme Court upholds ‘Twin Conditions’ for Granting Bail

Know Practical Aspects of Tax Planning, Click Here

Special Public Prosecutor Cibi Vishnu, representing the Directorate argued that the agency had the authority to act on an individual’s complaint as per the Supreme Court decision in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary & Ors Vs Union Of India & Ors (2022 TAXSCAN (SC) 158). He further submitted that Shankar had suffered no immediate harm due to the attachment, implying that judicial intervention was unnecessary at this stage.

The Madras High Court found merit in the plea raised by S. Shankar, and ordered a stay on the attachment of the property while directing the agency to file its counter arguments by April 21, 2025.

To Read the full text of the Order CLICK HERE

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates