ARB APPLN/1279/2026 of Sudha Kongara Vs Dawn Pictures Private Limited on 16 October 2026

COMMON ORDER

The above captioned Original Applications and Arbitration Application were originally disposed of by a common order dated 07.10.2026, recording the consent of the parties for appointment of an Arbitrator by appointing an Arbitrator. Thereafter, on the Memo filed by the Court appointed Arbitrator seeking his recusal, former Chief Justice of Calcutta High Court was appointed as an Arbitrator. A letter had been received from the substituted Arbitrator expressing his desire to recuse himself for the reasons indicated therein. In that regard, when the matter was further listed before this Court, there was no representation on the side of the respondent and hence, the order for appointing the learned Arbitrator was directed to be kept in abeyance and in respect of the above captioned applications, an order of closure was recalled with a further direction directing the respondents to furnish security for a sum of Rs.8,39,00,000/-. Thereafter, the respondent had taken out an application to recall the order as the order was made ex-parte. The order dated 05.08.2026 was recalled and thereafter, the respective counsels had made their arguments on merits in the above captioned applications.

2. Heard Mr.Nithayesh Nataraj, appearing for Mr.Vaibhav R Venkatesh, learned counsel for the applicants and Mr.P.S.Raman, learned Senior Counsel for Mr.Arun, learned counsel for the respondent.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the applicants would contend that a Director Agreement was entered to with the third party for production of a film with R.S.Suriya in the lead role, in which the first applicant was to be the director of the film and the second applicant was to be the facilitator for the direction of the said film. He would submit that under the said Agreement, a consolidated remuneration of Rs.12.5 Crores payable in four (4) instalments had been envisaged. By a mutual consent, the aforesaid Agreement was terminated on 18.12.2024. The respondent had acquired the rights for the production of the said film from the third party and an independent Director Agreement came into being between the applicants and the respondent. Under the new Agreement, the remuneration payable to the applicants was fixed at Rs.15,00,00,000/- and only on payment of the aforesaid amount, the intellectual rights in the said film were to be assigned to the respondent.

4. He would further submit that of the consideration payable to the applicants as of today there remains a balance payment of Rs.8,39,00,000/-. In spite of repeated request for making the payment, citing financial constraints the respondent had been delaying the payments and had also promised to retain the services of the applicants for its next production. A promise was also made that during the engagement of the applicants’ in the next production, the dues payable to the earlier film would also be made good. He would contend that a remuneration to a director cannot be refused and delayed citing commercial failures or constraints in the hands of the respondent. He would submit that it had come to know that the respondent had produced a film without involving the applicants and the applicants had taken out an application for injuncting the said movie which was refused by this Court in its order dated 10.07.2026. On which date, this Court had also appointed an Arbitrator and unfortunately both the Arbitrators appointed by this Court had recused themselves. He would further submit that since the above said movie had been released, the applicants interest should be protected by granting necessary orders in the present applications.

5. He would rely upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in 2022 (2) SCC 178 and would submit that relief of interim measures under Section 9 should not be with held on mere technicalities and in that regard, he would submit that interse communication between the parties which had been placed on record would prima facie show that there is an admission of liability by the respondent on the unpaid remuneration payable to the applicants’. Hence, he would seek this Court to grant interim orders protecting the interest of the applicants as prayed for in these applications.

6. The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent on the other hand would contend that the Direction Agreement that they entered to with the applicants was on the bonafidie belief that the first applicant had the right of intellectual property. He would submit that it is an admitted fact that the applicants had earlier entered into a similar agreement with the third party. However, the earlier agreement entered between the applicants and the third party came to be terminated only on 18.12.2024 and thereafter, a copyright assignment agreement was entered into between the parties herein and the third party. He would further submit that under the Agreement a receipt of full and final consideration for the services rendered by the applicants had been recorded and in that regard, the applicants are not entitled for any amounts from the respondent.

7. That apart, he would submit that the OTT release of the film ‘Parasakthi’ in which the respondent had held a copyright, had been unilaterally released by the applicants causing monetary loss to it. That apart, he would submit that the respondent even though being a new entity is stable financially and is also in the process of producing various films with lead actors under its banner. He would submit that as the applicants had paid the amounts in full, the intellectual property in the said film had also been vested with it and in respect of a prayer with regard to an another film cannot also be granted as it involves third party rights who are not before this Court.

8. He would further submit that the respondent has also claim against the applicants for causing financial loss to the applicants and in that regard, he would submit that the applications are devoid of merits and deserves no consideration and hence, prays this Court to dismiss these applications.

9. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.

10. The primordial dispute that had been raised by the applicants is that there is a failure to pay the part consideration for the services rendered by the applicants which had been stoutly refuted to by the respondents. The applicants had taken out an application for securing/ depositing a sum of Rs.8.39,00,000/- together with interest to secure its claim amount. It had also taken out two other applications for grant of an injunction in respect of a movie titled ‘Parasakthi’ to be released on any OTT platform and other services and from creating any third party interest over the said film or its intellectual property.

11. As noted supra, the lis between the parties is with regard to non- payment of part remuneration payable by the respondent to the applicants. Even

though, the learned counsels appearing on either side had made submissions touching upon the claim for payment which have been countered by the respondent as having been fully paid, this Court in the present applications cannot dwell upon the same to come to a conclusion that the claim made by the applicants is without merits. An interpretation of the agreements at the outset would have to be made to come to such a conclusion and in that regard, it would only be apposite to deal with the same in the arbitral proceedings.

12. The claims of the applicants is that in spite of the invoices being raised, a part remuneration has not been paid. However, relying upon a tripartite agreement which involves the parties to the lis and a third party, there had been an express receipt of full satisfaction of the remuneration payable to the applicants by the respondent.

13. In such view of the matter, this Court is of the considered view that the interest of the applicants could be protected by directing the respondent to produce a bank guarantee for a sum of Rs.8,39,00,000/- in favour of the applicants which should be kept valid till the disposal of the arbitral proceedings. In such view of the matter, this Court is of the further view that the Original Applications seeking for injunctions is not necessary to be adjudicated upon.

14. For the foregoing reasons, the respondent is directed to furnish a bank guarantee in favour of the applicants for a sum of Rs.8,39,00,000/- within a period of eight (8) weeks from today, they also should take necessary steps for appointment of an Arbitrator.

15. Accordingly, the application in Arb.Appl.No.1279 of 2026 stands disposed of and O.A.Nos,632 & 633 of 2026 stands closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. 16.10.2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No GBA

K.KUMARESH BABU, J. GBA Arb Appln No. 1279 of 2026 and O.A.Nos.632 & 633 of 2026 16.10.2026