Sudha Kongara vs Dawn Pictures Private Limited

Arb Appln No. 1279 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON
PRONOUNCED ON
28.08.2026
16.10.2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU
Arb Appln No. 1279 of 2026
and O.A.Nos.632 & 633 of 2026
1. Sudha Kongara
W/o Kongara Nagarjuna Siva Prasad
aged about 50 years, Indian national,
residing at 2A Sreshta Paranthaman,
46 Poes Garden, Gopalapuram,
Chennai 600 086,
(PAN ABJPS9036J)
2. Undertow Professional Services Private Limited
(doing business as “Meenakshi Cinemas”),
having its registered office at
Flat 121 Srinivasam Rowfin Estate,
Bhargavi Nagar Chinnaoutupalli,
Gannavaram, Krishna District,
Andhra - Pradesh 521 286.
and business address at:
2A Sreshta Paranthaman, 46 Poes Garden,
Gopalapuram, Chennai – 600 086.
..Petitioner(s) in
Arb.Appl. & both O.As
Vs
Dawn Pictures Private Limited
(formerly known as Akra Entertainment Private
Limited), a company incorporated under the
Companies Act, 2013, (PAN ABACA7995G),
having its registered office at Old No.5 & 7,
New No.3 & 4, La Gracia, Flat No.B-1, 1st floor,
Kavingar Bharathidasan Road, Teynampet,
Chennai - 600 018.
Represented by its Managing Director,
__________
Page1 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 06:32:09 pm )

Arb Appln No. 1279 of 2026
Mr.Akash Baskaran
..Respondent(s) in
Arb.Appl. & both O.As
PRAYER in Arb.Appln.No.1279 of 2026:- Arbitration Application filed to
direct the Respondent to secure or deposit a sum of Rs. 8,39,00,000/- (Rupees
Eight Crores Thirty Nine Lakhs Only) together with interest at 12 percentage
per annum from 08.02.2026 till the date of deposit, as a measure for securing
the claim amount pending the award of the Arbitral Tribunal
PRAYER in O.A.632 of 2026:- Original Application filed pass an order of ad-
interim injunction restraining the Respondent, its agents, assigns, nominees,
licensees, OTT partners, satellite broadcasters, digital platforms, and all persons
acting for and on behalf of the respondent, from releasing, broadcasting,
streaming, downloading, licensing, exhibiting, exploiting, or in any manner
communicating to the public the Film titled “Parasakthi” (originally
“Purananooru”) on any OTT (Over-the-top) media service, satellite channel,
digital/ streaming platform, cable network, or any other media, electronic or
otherwise, pending the passing of a final award in the arbitral proceedings to be
initiated by the petitioners under Clause 15 of the Director Agreement dated
02.07.2024; and pass such further or other orders a this Hon’ble Court may
deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.
PRAYER in O.A.No.633 of 2026:- Original Application filed to pass an order
of ad-interim injunction restraining the Respondent from alienating,
transferring, assigning, mortgaging, hypothecating, licensing or in any manner
creating third-party rights in or over the Film “Parasakthi” or its intellectual
property (including the Final Screenplay and all derivative works) pending the
final award in the arbitral proceedings.
In Arb.Appl. & both O.As:-
__________
Page2 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 06:32:09 pm )

Arb Appln No. 1279 of 2026
For Petitioner(s): Mr.Nithayesh Nataraj
for Mr.Vaibhav R Venkatesh
For Respondent(s): Mr.P.S.Raman
Senior Counsel
for Mr.Arun
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.
__________
Page3 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 06:32:09 pm )

Arb Appln No. 1279 of 2026
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
__________
Page4 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 06:32:09 pm )

Arb Appln No. 1279 of 2026
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
__________
Page5 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 06:32:09 pm )

Arb Appln No. 1279 of 2026
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
__________
Page6 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 06:32:09 pm )

Arb Appln No. 1279 of 2026
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
__________
Page7 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 06:32:09 pm )

Arb Appln No. 1279 of 2026
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.
__________
Page8 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 06:32:09 pm )

Arb Appln No. 1279 of 2026
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
__________
Page9 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 06:32:09 pm )

Arb Appln No. 1279 of 2026
K.KUMARESH BABU, J.
GBA
Arb Appln No. 1279 of 2026
and O.A.Nos.632 & 633 of 2026
16.10.2026
__________
Page10 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 06:32:09 pm )