Actor Sudeep’s Max distributor appeals against leave granted to ‘Kalaippuli’ Thanu to file suit in Madras HC

The Madras High Court on Tuesday (March 24, 2026) ordered notice to film producer ‘Kalaippuli’ S. Thanu of V Creations on an appeal filed by Bengaluru-based KRG Studios LLP in connection with a dispute between them over the distribution of Kichcha Sudeepa alias Sudeep Sanjeev-starrer Max.

A Division Bench of Justices P. Velmurugan and K. Govindarajan Thilakavadi permitted Mr. Thanu’s counsel to take notice on his behalf and ordered issuance of court notice to Mr. Sudeep too, in his capacity as the proprietor of Kichcha Creations, which had co-produced the movie along with V Creations.

The Bench directed the High Court Registry to list the appeal next on April 6, 2026 for further hearing. The appeal had been preferred against the dismissal of KRG Studios’ plea to revoke the leave granted to Mr. Thanu, by a single judge, to file a civil suit against the Bengaluru based firm at the Madras High Court.

Mr. Thanu had filed the suit in October 2025 seeking a direction to KRG Studios to submit true and proper accounts of the income and expenditure with respect to the distribution of Max within the territory of Karnataka as it had been agreed between them through an agreement signed on December 16, 2024.

The plaintiff had also sought a direction to KRG Studios to pay the dues to V Creations along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. He had further sought damages of ₹1 crore for alleged breach of the terms of the 2024 agreement based on which the distribution rights were granted to KRG Studios.

Along with his civil suit, Mr. Thanu had also filed an application to injunct KRG Studios from releasing its movie Mango Pachcha, starring Sanchith Sanjeev, without first settling his dues. Since the suit was filed against the firm based in Bengaluru, he also sought the leave (permission) of the court to file the suit in Chennai.

Justice N. Senthilkumar granted the leave on October 6, 2025, after observing that a part of cause of action had arisen in Chennai. However, KRG Studios filed an application for revoking the leave on the ground that the 2024 agreement specifically stated that any dispute could be resolved only before the courts in Bengaluru.

In the application filed through its counsel on record Vijayan Subramanian, KRG studios also stated that the stamp paper on which the 2024 agreement had been typed was purchased in Bengaluru and that the agreement was with respect to a movie, which was primarily shot in Kannada language.

Therefore, it claimed, no part of cause of action had arisen within the jurisdiction of Madras High Court thereby entitling Mr. Thanu to file the suit in Chennai. However, on February 4, 2026 Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy rejected the plea to revoke the leave.

The judge said, in the copy of the 2024 agreement, produced by Mr. Thanu before the court, the plaintiff had struck off the word ‘Bengaluru’ from the clause related to jurisdiction and replaced it with ‘Chennai.’ Though his signature was found next to the alteration, the signature of the defendant was absent.

Since it was not possible to record any conclusive finding on the alteration, the judge proceeded to decide the application to revoke the leave on the basis that no exclusive jurisdiction clause was agreed to by both the parties. He also came to a conclusion that a part of cause of action had indeed arisen in Chennai.

The judge said, as per the terms of the agreement, KRG Studios was obligated to remit the share of distribution revenue due to Mr. Thanu in his bank account located in Chennai and hence, the leave granted to file the suit before the Madras High Court could not be revoked.