Madras Excessive Courtroom stays ED’s attachment of director Shankar’s properties

Movie director S. Shankar. File
| Photograph Credit score: B. Jothi Ramalingam

The Madras Excessive Courtroom on Tuesday (March 11, 2025) stayed the operation of an order handed by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) on February 17, 2025, underneath the Prevention of Cash Laundering Act (PMLA) of 2002 for provisionally attaching three of movie director S. Shankar’s properties, roughly valued at ₹10.11 crore.

A Division Bench of Justices M.S. Ramesh and N. Senthilkumar granted the interim keep after agreeing with senior counsel P.S. Raman that the ED officers ought to not have connected the properties when a associated civil swimsuit had been dismissed and the prison proceedings had been stayed by the Excessive Courtroom.

The judges additionally ordered discover, returnably by April 21, 2025, to the ED on a writ petition filed by Mr. Shankar to quash the provisional attachment order and challenge a consequential route to the company to chorus from initiaing all additional proceedings pursuant to the issuance of the provisional attachment order.

The Division Bench took word that the ED had registered an Enforcement Case Data Report (ECIR) in opposition to the movie director on the idea of prison in addition to civil proceedings initiated by author Aarur Tamilnadan, who had accused Mr. Shankar of haivng stolen his storyline for Rajinikanth-starrer Enthiran.

The judges identified that the author had initially filed a personal criticism in opposition to the director earlier than a metropolitan Justice of the Peace in Egmore for offences underneath Part 63 of the Copyright Act and Part 420 (dishonest) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Nonetheless, Mr. Shankar had already approached the Madras Excessive Courtroom, underneath Part 482 of the Code of Legal Process, with a plea to quash the personal criticism. A single decide of the Excessive Courtroom had entertained the quash petition and stayed all additional proceedings earlier than the Justice of the Peace.

Whereas granting the keep, the one decide had taken word {that a} civil swimsuit filed by Mr. Tamilnadan, with comparable allegations of his story titled Jaguba having been copied by Mr. Shankar to make Enthiran, had been dismissed by the civil courtroom, Mr. Raman highlighted to the courtroom.

Discovering pressure in his submissions, the Division Bench led by Mr. Ramesh wrote: “When this courtroom has already taken cognisance that civil swimsuit has been dismissed and likewise entertained quash petition, the respondent (ED) ought to not have provisionaly connected the properties underneath the impugned (underneath problem) order.”

The Bench went on to state: “The provisional attachement order dated February 17, 2025, shouldn’t have been issued extra notably when the keep (in opposition to the personal prison criticism) was in operation for previous three years. Due to this fact, there shall be an interim keep of the provisional attachement order.”