(Prayer: To grant an order of Interim Injunction restraining the Respondent, their men, agents, representatives and/or any person acting through or under them, from releasing the movie titled THANAL in any manner whatsoever, pending disposal of the present Application.)

1. This application was filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“the Act”) for an interim injunction restraining the respondents from releasing a movie titled “Thanal” in any manner and in any platform.

2. This application came up for admission on 11.09.2025 and this Court, after considering the arguments addressed on the side of the applicant and the materials available on record, passed the following order :

                   “This application has been filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for an interim injunction restraining the respondent, their men, agents or representatives from releasing the movie titled “Thanal” in any manner and in any platform.

                   2. This Court carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and perused the materials available on record.

                   3. The parties are involved in distinct business transactions governed by two independent Agreements dated 22.06.2017 and 23.04.2018, wherein, the 1st respondent acted in the capacity of assignor in two different films. It is alleged that the 1st respondent failed to perform the obligation under the said agreements and thereby, causing a loss to the tune of Rs.3crores to the applicant. The parties thereafter took measures to amicably settle the dispute and the 1st respondent agreed to repay a sum of Rs.2crores to the applicant. The 1st respondent also made a business offer, where he sought for financial assistance from the applicant towards the production of his next film and in return, agreed to settle the sums borrowed for the said film from exploitation of digital and satellite rights of that film, even prior to the release of that film. Pursuant to the same, a Business Agreement dated 01.01.2020 was entered into between the parties. As per this agreement, the 1st respondent agreed to settle the amount of Rs.2crores that arose out of the earlier agreements within 30 days from the date of theatrical release of the film out of the theatrical proceeds of the film. As per Clause 2.11 of the said Business Agreement, the 1st respondent undertook not to release the film theatrically, without the receipt of the NOC in writing from the applicant. Thereafter, as per the terms of the agreement, the applicant had disbursed a sum of Rs.1,50,00,000/-.

                   4. The grievance expressed by the applicant is that he became aware of the fact that the movie is attempted to be released, after the teaser of the film was released on 02.09.2025. Upon enquiry, it came to light that the respondents are attempting to release the movie in violation/breach of the Business Agreement dated 01.01.2020, without the receipt of the NOC from the applicant. The applicant has not been settled the earlier dues and further, the respondents are attempting to defeat the rights of the applicant by releasing the movie and knocking off the entire proceeds. It is under these circumstances, the present application came to be filed before this Court.

                   5. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the materials placed before this Court, this Court finds that the applicant has made out a prima facie case. The balance of convenience is in favour of the applicant, since, if the movie is released, the applicant will lose his chance of recovering the amount from the 1st respondent and whereas, if the release of the movie is postponed, there is a good chance of the 1st respondent settling the amount to the applicant. Obviously, if the movie is released, the applicant will be put to irreparable loss. In view of the same, this Court is inclined to grant an order of interim injunction as sought for and this order will remain in force till 25.09.2025.

                   6. Notice to the respondent returnable by 25.09.2025. Private notice is also permitted.

                   7. The applicant to comply with Order XXXIX Rule 3(a) of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

                   Post on 25.09.2025.”

3. After the service of notice on the respondents, the application to vacate the interim order was listed for hearing on 12.09.2025 and after hearing both sides, the interim order was vacated, subject to certain conditions. For better appreciation, the order is extracted hereunder:

                   “The parties will be addressed according to their rank in O.A.No.916 of 2025.

                   2. This Court passed an interim order dated 11.09.2025 in O.A.No.916 of 2025 restraining the respondents from releasing the movie. Pursuant to the same, this application was filed for vacating the interim order and it is moved as a lunch motion today. This Court informed the learned counsel appearing on either side that the main application will be taken up for hearing on Monday and final orders will be passed. However, it was felt that if the matter is postponed till Monday, the movie will not be able to be released and the respondents will be deprived of their weekend collections. In the light of these submissions, this Court suggested that the parties can arrive at some interim arrangement and ultimately, this Court will take up the main application and pass final orders. Accordingly, the matter was passed over and taken up for hearing at 03.45 p.m. today.

                   3. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the second respondent submitted that the second respondent will pay a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- on Monday to the applicant and a further sum of Rs.30,00,000/- on or before 19.09.2025.

                   4. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that the applicant has not accepted for the said proposal and he required some time to take instructions from the applicant.

                   5. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the second respondent submitted that these payments are being made to the applicant without prejudice to the rights of the second respondent and these payments are made subject to the final result in these applications.

                   6. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent submitted that the payments made by the second respondent should not be construed as if the payments are being made by the second respondent on behalf of the first respondent and the first respondent will file a counter in this case and will independently agitate the dispute.

                   7. In the considered view of this Court, this Court has to necessarily exercise its discretion and ensure that the rights of the parties are balanced. Considering the fact that the movie has to be released today and the second respondent is dependent on the weekend collections for the coming two days, this Court is inclined to accept the offer made by the second respondent. Hence, there shall be a direction to the second respondent to deposit a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakhs Only) to the credit of O.A.No.916 of 2025 on 15.09.2025. There shall be a further direction to the second respondent to deposit a sum of Rs.30,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Lakhs Only) to the credit of O.A.No.916 of 2025 on or before 19.09.2025. Subject to these conditions, the interim order passed by this Court on 11.09.2025 is vacated and it is left open to the second respondent to proceed further to release the movie today (i.e.,) 12.09.2025. It is made clear that these payments are made by the second respondent without prejudice to his rights to contest this application on merits and similarly, it is left open to the first respondent to contest this application on merits.

                   8. Post this application along with the Original Application for hearing on 23.09.2025.”

4. The application was again listed for hearing on 23.09.2025 and the following order came to be passed by this Court:

                   “When the matter was taken up for hearing today, affidavit of proof of compliance was filed. It is seen that the condition imposed by this Court on 12.09.2025 has been complied with. A Demand Draft for a sum of Rs.50 Lakhs has been taken in the name of the Registrar General on 15.09.2025. Similarly, a Demand Draft for a sum of Rs.30 Lakhs has been taken in the name of the Registrar General on 19.09.2025 and copy of the both Demand Drafts has been annexed along with the proof of compliance.

                   2.The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the 2nd respondent seeks for some time to file counter in this case.

                   3.Post this case on 14.10.2025.”

5. The application was again listed for hearing on 17.10.2025 and this Court gave further clarification and the order passed on that day is extracted hereunder:

                   “When the earlier order passed by this Court on 12.09.2025, this Court specifically vacated the interim order that was passed on 11.09.2025 by imposing certain conditions. Those conditions were also complied with and it was recorded by this Court in the order passed on 12.09.2025.

                   2.The respondents wanted to exploit their rights in the Internet and OTT platforms. When the same was attempted, it seems that the applicant had issued a notice saying that there is an order of injunction passed by this Court.

                   3.The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant had merely informed the OTT platform and Internet providers that the application is pending before the High Court.

                   4.In view of the above, it is made clear that this Court has not prevented the respondents from releasing/exploiting their rights in any platform. It was also made clear in the earlier order that such interim order was passed without prejudice to the rights of both the parties to raise all grounds in the main application. This clarification will sufficiently take care of the rights of both the parties.

                   5.The above clarification will suffice to address the grievance expressed by the respondents.

                   6.Post the main application 'for hearing' on 28.10.2025.”

6. The application again came up for hearing on 19.01.2026 and the following order came to be passed by this Court:

                   “When the matter was taken up for hearing today, the learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the OSA that was filed was withdrawn. The learned counsel for the Applicant further submitted that the interim order passed by this Court can continue and the parties can be referred to the Arbitral Tribunal, since already the trigger notice has been issued. The learned counsel submitted that this Court can appoint the sole Arbitrator. The learned counsel further submitted that a sum of Rs.80,00,000/- has already been deposited and the movie has been released both in the theatre as well as on the OTT Platform. Hence, the learned counsel for the applicant must be permitted to withdraw the amount that was deposited by the 2nd respondent.

                   2. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent submitted that he is led by a Senior counsel and there are some objections for the withdrawal of the amount as sought for by the applicant.

                   3. In view of the above, the only issue to be gone into in this application at this stage is as to whether the applicant can be permitted to withdraw the amount that has been deposited by the 2nd respondent and the parties can be referred to the sole arbitrator.

                   4. Post this case under the caption for orders on 02.02.2026.”

7. When the matter was taken up for hearing today, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that huge sums of money is due and payable by the 1st respondent and the 1st respondent has managed to release the film through the 2nd respondent and considering the same, the amount that has already been deposited by the 2nd respondent can be permitted to be withdrawn by the applicant, without prejudice to the rights of both sides. Learned counsel further submitted that the dispute can be referred to a sole Arbitrator and the applicant is consenting for the same.

8. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the 2nd respondent submitted that there is absolutely no privity of contract between the applicant and the 2nd respondent and that the amount was deposited by the 2nd respondent, without prejudice to their rights and that the amount can remain in the deposit and ultimately, subject to the final result before the Arbitral Tribunal, the parties can work out their claim. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the 2nd respondent is not a party to the contract and there is no question of 2nd respondent consenting for referring the dispute, insofar as the 2nd respondent is concerned. Learned counsel for the 1st respondent submitted that they are disputing the very agreement itself and hence, there is no question of referring the dispute for arbitration.

9. This Court has considered the submissions made on either side and the materials available on record.

10. Insofar as the amount that has been deposited by the 2nd respondent, this Court deems it fit to continue the same status quo and it will be left open to work out the remedy under Section 17 of the Act before the sole Arbitrator, if at all, the applicant requires any further interim orders.

11. Insofar as referring the dispute to arbitration, the dispute as between the applicant and the 1st respondent alone can be referred to the sole Arbitrator, since admittedly, the 2nd respondent is not a party to the agreement. If at all, the 2nd respondent is a necessary party in the arbitral proceedings, the Arbitral Tribunal will have to take a call on this issue, since it is now held by the Apex Court that the Arbitral Tribunal itself can decide on the issue of impleading a party during the pendency of the proceedings. Useful reference can be made to the judgment of the Apex Court in ASF Buildtech Private Limited Vs Shapoorji Pallonji and Company Private Limited reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1016. It will suffice, if this clarity is given at this stage.

12. The 1st respondent is disputing the execution of the agreement. Considering the materials placed before this Court, it is seen that there is an agreement between the applicant and the 1st respondent and this agreement contains an arbitration clause. The dispute that has now been raised by the 1st respondent, cannot be gone into at this stage and it is left open to the 1st respondent to raise this issue before the sole Arbitrator appointed by this Court.

13. In the light of the above discussion, this Court appoints Mr.T.Murugamanickam, Senior Advocate, residing at N Block, 319, 25th Street, Anna Nagar East, Chennai-600 102 (Mobile No.98409 66260), as sole Arbitrator. The sole Arbitrator is requested to adjudicate the arbitral disputes that had arisen between the parties and render an arbitral award by holding sittings in the Madras High Court Arbitration Centre under the aegis of this Court as per Madras High Court Arbitration Proceedings Rules, 2017 and fee of the sole Arbitrator shall be in accordance with the Madras High Court Arbitration Centre (MHCAC) (Administrative Cost and Arbitrator's Fees) Rules, 2017.

14. As stated supra, the amount that has already been deposited shall continue and it will be left open to the applicant to move an appropriate application before the sole Arbitrator and seek for any further interim orders, if so advised. There shall be a direction to the Registrar General to transfer the deposit made to a fixed deposit earning interest and it shall be renewed from time to time, till any further orders are passed by the sole Arbitrator.

This application is disposed of in the above terms. Connected application is closed.