Rajini files caveat in "Lingaa" case

December 08, 2014 07:37 pm | Updated November 17, 2021 12:38 am IST - MADURAI

CHENNAI, TAMIL NADU, 07/12/2014: The politically-motivated Rajinikanthâs upcoming movie 'Lingaa' posters which were put up in Chennai by the fans of Tiruchi district.Photo: B. Jothi Ramalingam

CHENNAI, TAMIL NADU, 07/12/2014: The politically-motivated Rajinikanthâs upcoming movie 'Lingaa' posters which were put up in Chennai by the fans of Tiruchi district.Photo: B. Jothi Ramalingam

Actor Rajinikanth had filed a caveat application in the Madras High Court Bench in Madurai, anticipating the filing of a writ appeal in a case preferred by an aspiring filmmaker alleging theft of his script for making the actor’s much awaited movie Lingaa. The caveat was filed to prevent passing of any kind of interim order without hearing his stand.

When the appeal came up for hearing before Justices V. Dhanapalan and V.M. Velumani on Monday, the actor’s counsel Sanjay Ramaswami took notice on behalf the actor and agreed to argue the case on Wednesday since the movie was slated to be released on Friday and the appellant, K.R. Ravi Rathinam, had urged the court to stay its release.

The appeal was filed against the refusal of a single judge of the High Court to order a probe into the alleged theft. The judge had dismissed the appellant’s writ petition on December 3 on the ground that the dispute between the parties was private in nature and it could be resolved only through civil or criminal proceedings and not by invoking the writ jurisdiction.

Assailing the decision before the Division Bench, the appellant’s counsel W. Peter Ramesh Kumar contended that the single judge had overlooked Supreme Court’s latest decision in Lalita Kumari’s case which categorically holds that the police were bound to register a First Information Report within seven days of lodging a complaint making out a cognisable offence.

On the other hand, Mr. Ramaswami wondered how the petitioner could allege theft of script even without having watched the movie. Taking exception to the contents of the petitioner’s affidavit, he said: "He has made a mockery of my (Rajinikanth) community and called me a Kannadiga. Is it all necessary for the purpose of filing this case?" he asked.

The counsel also pointed out that two other individuals had filed similar cases, one in the Principal Seat of the Madras High Court in Chennai and another in the city civil court there, making allegations of theft of their scripts. "Nobody can claim right over a historical concept of building a dam. The concept can be same and ideas can be same but how one treats it makes the real difference," he added.

0 / 0
Sign in to unlock member-only benefits!
  • Access 10 free stories every month
  • Save stories to read later
  • Access to comment on every story
  • Sign-up/manage your newsletter subscriptions with a single click
  • Get notified by email for early access to discounts & offers on our products
Sign in

Comments

Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.

We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of The Hindu and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.