The Madras High Court case surrounding Akhanda II is not actually about the film itself.
The dispute traces back to a completely different film – the 2011 blockbuster Dookudu – and a long-running financial battle between Eros International Media Ltd. and production house 14 Reels Entertainment Pvt. Ltd.
Below is a clear breakdown of the entire timeline and why Akhanda 2 got entangled in a 10-year-old dispute.
How It All Began: The Dookudu Agreement (2015–2019)
Eros and 14 Reels Entertainment executed a financial and rights-related agreement connected to the film Dookudu.
Disputes soon emerged over payments, delivery of title documents, and performance of obligations under that agreement.
The result? Arbitration.
* On 23 July 2019, an arbitral tribunal directed 14 Reels Entertainment to:
* Pay ₹11.23 crore (plus contractual and post-award interest)
* Hand over all title documents related to Dookudu
* And refrain from dealing with Dookudu and other “forthcoming films” under the 2015 agreement until dues were settled
This award became fully final after:
.timeline-clean { list-style-type: disc; margin-left: 20px; }
.timeline-clean li { margin-bottom: 6px; }
Madras High Court dismissed 14 Reels’ challenge (2020)
Division Bench dismissed the appeal (Jan 2021)
Supreme Court dismissed the SLP (6 Aug 2021)
No money was ever paid.
Four Years of Silence: No Enforcement (2021–2025)
Despite winning fully in 2021, Eros did not move to enforce the award for nearly four years.
This delay later became a key argument used against Eros.
Akhanda 2 Triggers New Legal Action (2025)
In August 2025, Eros learned that the producers were gearing up to release Akhanda II, not through the award-debtor company (14 Reels Entertainment), but through a related entity: 14 Reels Plus LLP.
Eros alleged:
* The LLP was controlled by family/associates of the same promoters
* It was being used as an alter ego
* The move was designed to divert revenues and evade payment of the Dookudu award
Eros issued a legal notice on 26 August 2025, then immediately filed:
* Section 9 petitions before the Madras High Court
* Seeking to block the release of Akhanda II
* Until the ₹11.23 crore award (plus interest) was secured or paid
What Each Side Argued in Court
Eros (Applicant)
The award is final and unpaid.
* 14 Reels is trying to defeat recovery by shifting the Akhanda II release to the LLP.
* Without an injunction, they will suffer irreparable loss.
* The LLP is nothing but the alter ego of the award debtor.
* Several legal precedents allow veil-lifting in such circumstances.
14 Reels Entertainment (Respondent No. 1)
* Eros slept on its rights since 2021.
* They should proceed only before the execution court, not via fresh Section 9 petitions.
* Section 9 cannot be used as a “parallel remedy” after award finality.
14 Reels Plus LLP (Respondent No. 2)
* The LLP is independent, not a party to the original contract or arbitration.
* No injunction can be passed against a non-party.
* Veil-lifting requires strong evidence, which cannot be decided on limited affidavits in Section 9.
* Blocking Akhanda II would harm the LLP commercially.
High Court’s First Decision (30 October 2025)
A Single Judge of the Madras High Court dismissed Eros’ Section 9 petitions, holding:
* Section 9 cannot be used as a backdoor to execution
* Eros delayed enforcement for 4 years
* No concrete proof that the LLP was an alter ego
* Execution must happen before the Hyderabad court
* Result: No injunction → Akhanda II was free to release
High Court’s Division Bench Steps In (3 December 2025)
Eros appealed – and the Division Bench took a very different view.
The Division Bench ordered:
* The Single Judge’s order is set aside
* The matter is remanded for a fresh hearing
* Akhanda2 cannot be released, distributed, streamed, or exploited in any form
* Unless 14 Reels Entertainment / 14 Reels Plus LLP pays the entire arbitral award
* Injunction remains until final disposal of the Section 9 petitions
This effectively blocks the release of Akhanda II until the 2019 Dookudu award is cleared.
Where Things Stand Today
* The original dispute remains strictly about Dookudu
* Akhanda II is caught in the crossfire only because its revenues may help recover the old dues
* The film’s release is now tied directly to the repayment of a six-year-old arbitral debt
The case highlights:
* Corporate veil disputes
* Post-award Section 9 maintainability
* Award-evasion concerns in film financing
* How a decade-old contract can impact a major new theatrical release
Akhanda II has been halted not because of the film itself, but because of a long-pending payment dispute over Dookudu, where the producers are alleged to be diverting revenues through a related LLP to avoid paying a ₹11.23-crore arbitral award due to Eros.
The post Akhanda2 Legal Battle Explained: The Full Story Behind the Madras High Court Case appeared first on Telugu360.