One of Tamil Nadu’s oldest film production houses, property dispute between partners of AVM Productions owned by family, has reached the Madras High Court, with one of the great granddaughters of founder AV Maipan to divide the family properties. Is insisting

One of Ms. Guhan’s twin daughters, Aparna Guhan Shyam has filed a civil case in the High Court, demanding one-fifth part in family properties. He has also sought a permanent prohibition, stopping the AVM studio from competing with AVM productions in the film business.

What is controversy?

According to the plaintiff, AVM Productions was a partnership firm in which his native grandfather M. Saravanan (popularly known as AVM Saravanan) had 15% stake, his father Mr. Guhan had a 45% stake, and his sister Aruna Guhan and 20 were 20% each.

Claiming that his father developed a hostile attitude towards him as he had married a person from another caste, the plaintiff said, he created a special purpose vehicle (SPV) called AVM Studio, in which 50 with him % Shares and her sister as well as her sister. His grandfather caught 25% each.

Although the plaintiff was not included as a partner in the AVM Studio, which was designed to carry the same business such as making feature films, web series, operating studios and related activities, forming its partnership Said that all benefits and disadvantages from business will be transferred. AVM Productions.

It is feared that the SPV was fully created for the purpose of damaging AVM products and finally closed, the plaintiff filed an application, requesting the court to urge that he was any kind to AVM Studio. Prevent professional activity from completing, until its suit is disposed of for partition. ,

When the application for hearing was made by Justice RMT Teka Raman, it was argued by Mr. Guhan that AVM Productions had turned into a disadvantage-making company due to the over-activism of the plaintiff which he wanted that he wanted to have one Produce the film. Her husband as a hero.

It was the policy of the company that any member of its family should not work to produce it in films and therefore, the respondents refused to meet his demand. The respondents said that because of this enmity against the family developed and filed the current suit for partition.

The single judge was also told that family members were forced to float the AVM studio as the plaintiff refused to sign the check and financial statements on time and cooperate in the conduct of day-day cases of AVM Productions. Had refused to do it.

After listening to both sides, on January 10, 2025, Justice Raman gave an interim prohibition, as sought against the AVM Studio. He saw that, otherwise, the plaintiff would be placed for difficulty if the loss earned by AVM Studios, in which he was not a partner, was transferred to AVM Productions.

While allowing another application filed by the plaintiff, the judge directed his father and sister to activate their official email ID with AVM Domain name. He came to a conclusion that the applicant deserved an official email ID in his capacity as a shareholder.

Mr. Guhan has now filed two appeals challenging the interim orders passed by the single judge in favor of his daughter. Justice SM Subramaniam and K. A division bench of Rajsekar ordered a notice on Friday (February 21, 2025), on two appeals, Ms. Shyam returned for three weeks, and the parties were instructed to fulfill their arguments by then.