Filmmaker Ram Gopal Varma has been served a Rs 29.67 crore recovery notice by production house Eclatant Films Private Limited, which has also issued a public warning to the entire film industry against conducting any business with the director without obtaining the company’s prior written clearance.The notice, published in the October 24 and October 31 editions of trade publication Complete Cinema, stems from a 16-year-old agreement between Ram Gopal Varma and Eclatant Films and carries a deadline of October 30, for full payment of the outstanding amount, which includes Rs 11.38 crore in accumulated interest.According to the notice, Eclatant Films sent a legal notice to Ram Gopal Varma on October 15, asking him to settle total outstanding dues of Rs 29,67,64,000. The dispute originates from an agreement signed between the two parties on April 10, 2010. The company has also referenced an order passed by the Bombay High Court on April 17, 2013, in connection with that agreement, though the specific details of the court order have not been disclosed in the public notice.Also Read: Ram Gopal Varma compares Bollywood, South cinema: ‘Hindi films have accountability, discipline’Industry-wide warningWhat elevates this from a bilateral financial dispute to an industry-wide development is the scope of the warning Eclatant Films has issued alongside the recovery demand. The company has cautioned all producers, distributors, broadcasters and OTT streaming platforms against entering into transactions involving Ram Gopal Varma or his projects without first obtaining a written No-Objection Certificate (NOC) from Eclatant Films.According to the notice, the terms of the 2010 agreement require Ram Gopal Varma to secure such an NOC before associating with any third party or undertaking activities related to film production, co-production, direction or writing until the outstanding dues are fully settled. The company has specifically warned that any individuals or entities who acquire, license, distribute, broadcast, stream or otherwise exploit rights connected to projects that fall within the scope of the agreement would be doing so at their own risk if they proceed without the required clearance.What Eclatant Films can claimThe company has stated that if Ram Gopal Varma fails to clear the dues, it will assert its contractual lien over his share, rights, interests, revenues and exploitation rights in the films and projects covered under the 2010 agreement. A contractual lien, if enforceable, would give Eclatant Films a claim over the earnings and rights of those projects ahead of any new business partners Ram Gopal Varma might bring in.Story continues below this adAlso Read: RGV says film with Mohit Suri will be ‘larger’ than Dhurandhar, ‘more rooted’ than SatyaThe nature and extent of the 2010 agreement, including which specific films and projects it covers, how many of Ram Gopal Varma’s subsequent works fall within its scope and whether the NOC requirement applies to all of his professional activity or only to projects directly connected to the original deal, has not been fully detailed in the public notice.Not the first financial disputeThis is not the first time Ram Gopal Varma has faced financial claims from production partners. In 2021, the Federation of Western India Cine Employees (FWICE) sought to stop the release of his film D Company over unpaid dues of Rs 12 crore. The current claim of Rs 29.67 crore, with nearly Rs 11.39 crore in interest alone accumulating over what appears to be a 16-year period, represents a considerably larger financial dispute.Ram Gopal Varma, whose filmography includes landmark films like Satya (1998), Company (2002) and Sarkar (2005), has in recent years shifted to a model of low-budget, independently produced and often controversial releases distributed through smaller platforms and his own channels.Story continues below this adThe filmmaker is currently working on Police Company, starring Harshvardhan Rane. Whether this project falls within the scope of the Eclatant Films agreement is unclear. Ram Gopal Varma has not publicly responded to the notice.