Soundharya reacts to Kochadaiiyan row

By NT Bureau Published on Jul 06, 2018 03:41 PM IST

Chennai: Soundharya Rajinikanth released a clarification on behalf of Latha Rajinikanth yesterday in Kochadaiiyan row.

The Supreme Court on 3 July directed Latha Rajinikanth to reply when will her company pay back Rs 6.20 crore to Ad Bureau Advertising Pvt Ltd for the loss faced by the company during the release of the film Kochadaiiyaan.

Ad Bureau had lent Rs 10 crore to Media One headed by Latha Rajinikanth for the post-production of the animated Rajinikanth starrer Kochadaiiyaan.

In a police complaint filed in November 2014, against Latha and Kochadaiiyaan producer J Murali Manohar, Ad Bureau Advertising Pvt Ltd accused them of cheating after agreeing to provide them distribution rights for the movie in Tamilnadu and also an investment of Rs 10 crore after a guarantee by Latha.

In February this year, the Supreme Court had directed Latha to pay Rs 6.20 crore with interest within a 12 week period. As director of Media One, she undertook to be a guarantor for the loan. A bench comprising Justices Ranjan Gogoi and R Banumathi said that if the amount is not paid within the stipulated time, Latha would have to pay it herself.

Now, the apex court after the completion of the 12 week period, has directed Latha to reply when will she pay the compensation. She has been directed to reply in the next hearing on 10 July.

Soundarya, in her statement, said, “Whilst the publications record what transpired during the oral part of the hearing, they do not mention the official order of the bench which, contrary to representations made in the said publications, vindicates Mrs Rajinikanth’s position.”

“What was recorded in the order dated 16.04.2018 cannot be implemented as not only is there a denial of liability on the part of M/s Mediaone Global Entertainment Ltd but also it is stated on behalf of respondent number 1 [Latha Rajinikanth] that the statement made by her counsel, as recorded, was without instructions and the liability of the respondent No 1 is not to the extent indicated. Having considered the matter, the court is of the view that instead of entering into the issue of the extent of liabilities of the parties, it would be more appropriate to hear and decide the petition on merits," read the court order.