Actor Ravi Mohan Sues ‘Bro Club’ Producer Shruthi Nallappa for Defamation, Madras High Court Issues Notice
Chennai, India – Renowned actor Ravi Mohan has initiated legal proceedings against producer Shruthi Nallappa, alleging defamation related to their upcoming film, ‘Bro Club’. The dispute, which centers on alleged outstanding dues and pre-production costs, has escalated to the Madras High Court, which has now issued a notice to Nallappa. The next hearing is scheduled for August 25.
According to reports, Ravi Mohan accuses Shruthi Nallappa of deliberately tarnishing his reputation and that of his production company by dispatching defamatory communications to various industry entities, including the streaming giant Netflix and the South Indian Film Chamber of Commerce.
The Genesis of the ‘Bro Club’ Controversy
The legal battle stems from a complex production history surrounding ‘Bro Club’, a multi-starrer initially known as ‘Bro Code’. The project was originally slated to be produced by Miracle Movies, led by Shruthi Nallappa, with Ravi Mohan signed as a lead actor alongside S.J. Suryah and Arjun Ashokan.
However, the production plan underwent a significant shift. Ravi Mohan subsequently took over the reins of the film’s production under his own banner, Ravi Mohan Studios. While Miracle Movies reportedly consented to this new arrangement, disagreements later surfaced concerning expenses incurred during the initial stages of development.
Producer Alleges Unpaid Dues
At the heart of the current dispute are the pre-production costs that Shruthi Nallappa claims to have expended on the project. The producer alleges that these expenses remain unpaid. Ravi Mohan’s legal team informed the Madras High Court that Nallappa then began contacting various third parties, including Netflix, to address these alleged outstanding amounts.
A particularly impactful communication was reportedly sent to Netflix, urging the streaming platform to halt any further payments related to the digital rights of ‘Bro Club’. This request was allegedly tied to the purported unpaid sum and accumulated interest. Netflix, in turn, forwarded this communication to Ravi Mohan Studios, requesting that they resolve any third-party claims and seeking protection against potential claims or damages arising from the ongoing dispute.
Ravi Mohan’s Stance: Defamation, Not Debt Recovery
Representing Ravi Mohan in court, senior counsel R. Parthasarathy argued that if Shruthi Nallappa genuinely believed she was owed money, she should have pursued appropriate legal channels for debt recovery. Instead, Parthasarathy contended that Nallappa’s communications to third parties constituted an act of defamation, directly harming the actor’s and his production company’s standing within the industry.
"It is an admitted fact that I have become the producer of the movie, but she is going about writing to Netflix, the film chamber of commerce, and others, defaming me. What right does she have to do this?" Parthasarathy reportedly stated before the court.
The Madras High Court has yet to make a final determination on these allegations. The court’s notice to Shruthi Nallappa mandates her response, and her arguments are anticipated during the upcoming hearing on August 25.
A History of Legal Scrutiny for ‘Bro Code’
This latest legal entanglement is not the first for the project. Previously, the film faced a legal challenge concerning its initial title, ‘Bro Code’. As reported by Live Law, in November 2025, the Delhi High Court declined to stay a single-judge order related to a trademark dispute between Ravi Mohan’s production house and a company associated with the alcoholic beverage brand ‘BROCODE’. That case focused solely on the use of the title, distinct from the current defamation charges before the Madras High Court.
On the professional front, Ravi Mohan was last seen in the film ‘Parasakthi’.
Disclaimer: The information presented in this article is based on reports of a legal hearing. The details provided represent allegations made by the involved parties and should not be construed as proven facts. As the case is ongoing, a final verdict has not been reached, and this publication does not assert the truthfulness of the allegations.
