Kamal Hassan sues Saimira for Rs 11 cr compensation
News
oi-Staff
Actor
Kamal
Hassan
has
filed
a
case
in
the
Madras
High
Court
against
Pyramid
Saimira
Production
International
Ltd,
(PSTL)
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
Marmayogi
MoU
with
the
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.
Kamal
Hassan
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
including
Ramesh
Sippy
and
Walt
Disney,
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
real
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.
Kamal
Hassan
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
Hassan
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.