(Prayer Pass an order appointing an Advocate Commissioner to visit the Respondents 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 Applicants equipment specifically described in the Schedule to the Judges Summons and hand them over to the Applicant, pending final adjudication of the disputes between parties through Arbitration.)

This application was filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to take possession of the equipments morefully described in the schedule to the Judges summons.

2. The case of the applicant is that the respondent approached the applicant for installing film projection through digital cinema equipment at the theatre premises of the respondent. An agreement was entered into between the parties on 23.02.2019 for a period of 10 years, in which, the first 8 years were considered as lock-in period. During the subsistence of the agreement, additional equipments were also provided by the applicant, for which, they entered into an agreement on 27.05.2025 for a period of 10 years. According to the applicant, nearly 12 equipments were handed over to the respondent.

3. The grievance of the applicant is that the respondent has committed breach of the terms of the agreement and hence, the applicant issued a notice dated 21.08.2025 calling upon the respondent to handover the equipments immediately and also expressed the intention of the applicant to refer the matter for arbitration in line with Clause 15 of the agreement. Since there was no response, the present application has been filed before this Court.

4. This Court ordered notice to the respondent on 09.10.2025 and after service of notice, the application has been listed for hearing today.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent brought to the notice of this Court the reply notice given by the respondent on 16.09.2025, wherein, the respondent has made it clear that they do not have any objection for returning the equipments to the applicant.

6. For proper appreciation, the relevant portion in the reply notice is extracted hereunder:

                   “5. My client states that they have no objection for returning the equipments of your client and your client is at liberty to take possession of the same at any time. My client is not liable to pay damages of Rs.1,96,50,000/- to your client along with interest at 18% p.a., as demanded by your client. My clients states that in fact, they had suffered heavy loss due to your client’s poor service. My client reiterates that your client did not provide services as agreed by them. My client states that since no arbitrable interest is involved, my client is not wiling to give consent for appoint of Mr.Palanivel Rajan, Senior Advocate, High Court, Madras as sole arbitrator. My client reserves their right to file detailed reply separately.”

7. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that even though the respondent is willing to handover the entire equipments, the respondent is objecting to appointment of Arbitrator named by the applicant.

8. It is not necessary for this court to go into the issue of appointment of Arbitrator considering the fact that this application has been filed only for an interim protection under Section 9 of the Act. Since the respondent has taken a stand that they are willing to handover the equipments to the applicant, liberty is granted to the applicant to re-possess all the equipments from the respondent. The respondent shall act as per the undertaking and handover all the equipments to the applicant. Insofar as the appointment of Arbitrator is concerned, the same shall be agitated in the manner known to law.

This application is disposed of in the above terms.