While hearing a copyright dispute, the Madras High Court today questioned producer Firoz Nadiadwala on whether Hera Pheri 3 is actually being produced.

The case alleges that he violated copyright agreements by making more than one film in the Hera Pheri franchise.

During the hearing of a copyright infringement suit, the Court yesterday asked counsel to clarify whether any further sequels or derivative works in the Hera Pheri franchise were underway.

The query was raised by Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy in a case filed by Seven Arts International Limited, which asserts exclusive derivative rights linked to the Malayalam films Ramji Rao Speaking and Mannar Mathai Speaking.

According to the plaintiff, the Malayalam films served as the source material for the Hindi remake Hera Pheri, with the rights limited to producing only one Hindi version.

According to the plaint, while Nadiadwala was permitted to remake Ramji Rao Speaking only once in Hindi, he went on to produce Phir Hera Pheri, a sequel, in 2006 without authorisation, thereby exceeding the rights granted to him.

Seven Arts alleges that the sequel was made without the consent of the original authors or their assignees and without payment of royalties for derivative use.

The company further claims that under an Assignment Agreement dated May 12, 2022, it acquired all derivative rights — including sequel, prequel, spin-off, adaptation and character rights — from the original authors and producer of the Malayalam films. On this basis, it contends that any further Hera Pheri sequel would amount to copyright infringement unless authorised by Seven Arts.

The plaint states that Seven Arts recently became aware of plans to produce Hera Pheri 3, including in collaboration with Cape of Good Films, with shooting proposed to begin shortly. Citing this apprehension, the company has sought urgent interim relief to restrain any further exploitation of the underlying works.

It was in this context that Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy sought clarity on whether Hera Pheri 3 was being made at all. The Court observed that in the absence of instructions confirming the existence or proposed making of a third instalment, it would be difficult to assess the urgency claimed in the matter.

Seven Arts was represented by Advocates Arun C Mohan and Shruthi Srinivasan of Mohan & Associates, while Nadiadwala was represented by Advocates Praveen Desai and Rajavelu.