ARB APPLN/773/2026 of TSR FILMS PRIVATE LIMITED Vs SANDHYA THEATRE on 16 October 2026

ORDER

The present Arbitration Application had been filed to direct the respondent to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to visit the respondent's premises, Theatres, Auditorium, Screens, Projector room and any other premises of the respondent along with local police protection to break open if necessary and to seize and take custody of the Applicant's equipment specifically described in the Schedule to the Judge's Summons and hand them over to the applicant pending final adjudication of the disputes between parties through Arbitration.

2. Heard Mr.Dhanaram Ramachandran, learned counsel appearing for the Applicant and Mr.C.Jagadish, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant would submit that the applicant is engaged in the business of providing film projection and sound service through digital projection system to various exhibitors of whom the respondent was also one of its customer. He would submit that the applicant and the respondent had entered into an agreement on 21.07.2023, with a lock-in period of five (5) years, whereunder the respondent was provided with assets under a lease, such as projector, lens, faceplate & server. Under the said agreement, the respondent had appointed the applicant as its sole advertising concessionaire. He would submit that it had come to the knowledge of the applicant that the respondent was also sourcing content from third parties for exhibition at its theatre premises preventing the applicant to exhibit its content at the respondent's theatre. Hence, an on-site inspection was made by the applicant through its Engineers and it had come to its knowledge that the respondent had deinstalled the equipments provided by the applicant without prior information and had installed equipments from a third party entity. He would submit that such act of the respondent is in contravention of the agreement that was entered on 21.07.2023 and subsisting between the parties.

4. He would further submit that under the agreement, the ownership of the equipments vested with the applicant for a period of five years which is a lock-in period and the retention of the equipments after dis-installing by the respondent is wholly in contravention of the agreement and causing severe prejudice to the applicant. Hence, the applicant had made multiple attempts to recover the equipments from the site of the respondent, which have all been thrawted by the respondent. Inspite of the legal notice, the respondent continues to retain the assets belonging to the applicant. He would submit that the non- usage of the equipments could good cause breakdown and damage of the same, as the electronic equipments require continuous maintenance. That apart, the value of the asset would also deteriorate. Hence, he would submit that pending the arbitral proceedings to be initiated between the parties, it is appropriate that an Advocate Commissioner could be appointed to seize and take custody of the applicant's equipments as described in the judges summon.

5. Countering his argument, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that the terms of the agreement as prepared by the applicant are standard form of contract, which is unilateral. Disputes arose between the parties in September 2025 when as promised by the applicant for premiering a Telugu film, which was scheduled to be premiered at 7.00pm on 04.09.2025. There was a failure on the part of the applicant to perform part of its obligation and when contacted, it was claimed that the uploading of the film content would be made at 10.05 pm. On the said promise, bookings were made, but the applicant failed to upload the film content and had also not responded to the respondent's call. This created a situation where the film enthusiast had lodged a Police complaint, which heavily dented the goodwill and reputation of the respondent. He would submit that it was only the applicant who had unilaterally stopped providing the digital content for exhibiting the films and it is further the applicant, who has to make good the share of revenue from the advertisements.

6. He would vehemently contend that the entire consideration for the equipments have been paid by the respondent and the applicant do not have any right whatsoever under the agreement.

7. When that being so, referring to the Standard Forms of Contract inspite of receipt of the entire value of the asset, the applicant cannot seek for an appointment of an Advocate Commissioner for repossessing the assets which do not belong to it. Hence, he prays this Court to dismiss the application.

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

9. There is no dispute with regard to the relationship between the parties under the agreement that had been entered to between them.

10. The claim of the applicant is that the assets owned by it and installed in the respondent's premises continuous to be the asset of the applicant for the lock-in period of five (5) years, whereas it is the case of the respondent that when the value of the assets had been fully paid during the subsistence of the agreement, the standard lock-in period in the agreement cannot operate as the rights of the applicant in the assets had been transferred to the respondent. Disputes with regard to the payment of the revenue for displaying the advertisements as envisaged in the agreement had also arisen between the parties.

11. Even though, the applicant had issued a notice as early as on 17.09.2025 envisaging its right to invoke Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, as on this date, a notice under Section 21 is yet to be triggered by the applicant. Section 9 application had been envisaged as an interim measure pending initiation of arbitral proceedings whereby under sub-section (2), 90 days period or any further time as extended by the Court had been mandated. The present case as early as on October 2025, notice had been issued with a threat of initiating a Section 9 Application for recovery of equipments and further claiming damages. However, Section 9 had been only initiated before this Court in the month of March 2026 and even as of this date, a trigger notice had not been issued.

12. In this regard, this Court does not find any merits in this application and accordingly, the same is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. 16.10.2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No Pbn

K.KUMARESH BABU, J. PBN A Pre-delivery Order made in Arb Appln.No.773 of 2026 16.10.2026