Ranveer Singh rejects intervention in Don 3 row, says only an ‘MoU’ exists: What it means for Farhan Akhtar

The fallout between Ranveer Singh and Farhan Akhtar over the actor's abrupt departure from Don 3 has escalated to a new film body, after an earlier attempt to resolve things through FWICE went nowhere.

According to Indian Express, Farhan and his producing partner Ritesh Sidhwani of Excel Entertainment approached the Indian Motion Pictures Producers Association (IMPPA) after their earlier appeal to FWICE failed to produce any resolution months ago. IMPPA, in turn, invited Ranveer to present his side of the dispute. While the actor's father, Jagjit Singh Bhavnani, agreed to a meeting, Ranveer's team took a firmer stance in their formal response, asking the association to steer clear of the matter entirely, and reportedly warning of legal action if it didn't.

This isn't the first time Ranveer has pushed back against a film body's involvement. He took a similar position against FWICE a few months earlier, after it issued a non-cooperative directive against him, suggesting IMPPA could be headed toward the same standoff.

The MoU question

At the heart of Ranveer's defense is a claim that no formal contract ever existed between him and Excel Entertainment for Don 3, only a Memorandum of Understanding. His team has used that distinction to argue that film bodies have no jurisdiction here, and that any dispute should be settled in court instead.

That raises a genuinely tricky legal question: does an MoU actually carry legal weight, or is it just a preliminary formality?

Speaking to Screen, media and entertainment lawyer Sanjay Vasudevan explained that the answer isn't straightforward without seeing the actual document. As he put it, the absence of a separate long-form agreement "does not, by itself, mean that no enforceable contract existed." According to Vasudevan, a court would likely dig into the MoU's actual language — whether it uses binding terms like "shall" or "undertakes," whether it includes a "subject to contract" clause, and whether it lays out specifics like the actor's role, pay, dates, exclusivity, and what happens if either side walks away.

Beyond the paperwork itself, Vasudevan noted that how both parties actually behaved afterward would matter just as much things like whether an advance was paid, dates were blocked off, pre-production got underway, or public announcements were made. Notably, Ranveer and Excel Entertainment did jointly release a Don 3 promo three years ago that featured him in the title role. Excel has also reportedly shared documentation covering pre-production costs, planned outdoor shoot details, and a record of ongoing communication with Ranveer leading up to his exit.

Even if the MoU is found to be binding, Vasudevan pointed out that the remedies available would likely be limited to financial damages or possibly injunctive relief, not a court forcing an actor back into a role. As he explained, compelling someone to perform personal creative work through the legal remedy of specific performance would run into serious practical and legal obstacles.

He also noted that in the film industry, it's standard practice for an initial MoU or term sheet to be followed later by a more detailed agreement covering pay, scheduling, creative sign-offs, publicity, and liability — and whether that later document was meant to simply formalize an already-settled deal, or was a necessary condition before anything became binding, would come down to the exact wording used and the context surrounding it.