Kamal Haasan files suit, seeks Rs.11 crore

Special Correspondent

For the “loss” he had suffered

CHENNAI: Actor Kamal Haasan has filed a suit in the Madras High Court against Pyramid Saimira Production International Ltd, T. Nagar, and its director, K.S. Srinivasan, seeking a direction to pay him Rs. 11 crore with interest for the loss he suffered due to the restrictions on him by an MoU with the entertainment company.

In the suit, the actor and Raajkamal Films International said an agreement was signed in April last year between Raajkamal Films and the company for the production of the film “Marmayogi.” Mr. Kamal Haasan executed the MoU. Production of film commenced in March last year itself. The actor had not only directed some inaugural scenes, but also acted in them. A song was sung by him. He played the recorded song around last week of August. Around this period, he received very good offers to act from other producers, but had to refuse them as he had to act only in “Marmayogi” as per the MoU. The plaintiffs alleged that after July 30, 2008 the defendants did not make further payments.

If the entertainment company had not restricted him, he would have acted in other movies. Still, he would have taken care of the direction and acting in Marmayogi. By not disclosing their true financial position, by restricting him from acting in any other picture, and by not paying him the entire remuneration, the defendants had caused a loss of over Rs. 40 crore to him, the suit said.

Mr. Kamal Haasan also filed an application seeking an interim injunction to restrain the defendants from making any statement relating to the agreement to anyone without the court’s permission. The court has posted the matter for October 9 for counter.

Meanwhile, as ordered by the High Court earlier in another case for the release of the film “Unnaipol Oruvan”, Kamal Haasan and others filed a memo stating that bank guarantee for Rs. 3.91 crore had been furnished. Pyramid Saimira’s counsel submitted that only for one year the guarantee had been furnished. Justice G. Rajasuria said it was for the plaintiff to make arrangements for renewal, pending disposal of the suit.