Sun TV Network Ltd vs M/s.Marina Holdings and another

A.No.1663 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON
PRONOUNCED ON
17.09.2026
16.10.2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU
A.No.1663 of 2026
in
EP No.122 of 2025
Sun TV Network Limited
Rep., by its Authorised Signatory
Mr.M.Jyothi Basu,
Murasoli Maran Towers,
73, MRC Nagar Main Road,
MRC Nagar, Chennai – 600 028,
Tamil Nadu India. ... Applicant
Vs
1.M/s.Marina Holdings,
Rep., by its Partner, Rajkumar Sethupathy,
Level 7A, Capital Towers, 555,
Anna Salai, Teynampet, Chennai – 600 018.
2.N.Ramasamy
Proprietor, Sri Thenandal Films,
Old No.19, New No.14,
Saraswathy Street, Mahalingapuram,
Nungambakkam, Chennai. ... Respondents
PRAYER: - Execution Application had been filed to allow the claim that the
applicant being the bonafide transferee is the absolute owner of the schedule
mentioned properties in E.P.No.122 of 2025 in view of the prior rights accrued
and consequently release the attachment on the schedule mentioned properties
in E.P.No.122 of 2025.
__________
Page1 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 06:32:09 pm )

A.No.1663 of 2026
For Petitioner : Mr.Jose John for
M/s.King & Partridge
For Respondent : Mr.K.Ravi, Senior counsel
for M/s.Rugan & Arya
ORDER
The Execution Application had been filed to allow the claim that the
applicant being the bonafide transferee is the absolute owner of the schedule
mentioned properties in E.P.No.122 of 2025 in view of the prior rights accrued
and consequently release the attachment on the schedule mentioned properties
in E.P.No.122 of 2025.
2. Heard Mr.Jose John, learned counsel appearing for the applicant and
Mr.K.Ravi, the learned Senior counsel appearing for the respondent.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant would submit that the
applicant had entered into a Theatrical Distribution Agreement and an
Assignment Agreement in respect of the Tamil film ‘ SARKAR’ with the second
respondent whereunder, the second respondent was liable to pay a sum of Rs.80
Crores to the applicant. Disputes arose under the Theatrical Distribution
Agreement and the second respondent along with his wife and sisters executed a
guarantee and undertaking agreement under which they have agreed to
encumber 11 immoveable properties belonging to them in favour of the
__________
Page2 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 06:32:09 pm )

A.No.1663 of 2026
applicant. He would further submit that the applicant had instituted an arbitral
proceedings under Section 9 of the Act before this Court, in which an order of
attachment of the immoveable properties which are the subject matter of the
Execution Petition came to be made. A Joint Memo of Compromise was also
entered between the parties wherein they have agreed to execute a Sale Deed in
favour of the applicant and the same came to be recorded by this Court and the
applications were disposed of by order dated 23.11.2018. As the schedule of the
properties were not found part of the order as indicated in the Memo of
Compromise, the matter was again taken up before this Court on 10.02.2025
wherein the schedule of the properties were also directed to be appended. As
again disputes arose between the parties, a further application was taken out. He
would submit that while that being so, the first respondent had initiated
arbitration proceedings as against the second respondent and had obtained an
order of interim attachment of the properties and the properties were sold in
favour of the applicant by the second respondent, his wife and sisters by a
registered Sale Deed in the year 2021.
4. Further, arbitral proceedings was initiated by the applicant as against
the second respondent in which an Award came to be passed directing the
second respondent to hand over the possession of the residential properties
which are the subject matter of the Execution Petition, to the applicant. A
challenge to the same was negatived and pursuant to the Execution Proceedings
__________
Page3 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 06:32:09 pm )

A.No.1663 of 2026
in E.P.No.109 of 2025 the possession had also been taken over by the applicant.
He would further submit that only now it had come to his knowledge of the
dispute between the respondents 1 & 2 and the order of attachment made by this
Court and that the said properties were also the subject matter of an Execution
Petition under which it is sought to be sold and hence, he had taken out the
present Application as is a bonafide transferee. He would submit that the order
of attachment which came to passed in favour of the first respondent was much
subsequent to the rights that had been given over the schedule of the properties
to the applicant and in that regard the attachment cannot be held against the
applicant and the properties been proceeded with against in the Execution
proceedings. In that regard, he had also relied upon various judgments in
support of his contentions. Hence, he prays this Court to release the attachment
of the schedule mentioned properties which has also been made in the
Execution proceedings.
5. Countering his arguments, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf
of the first respondent would submit that the earlier guarantee which is sought
to be relied upon for vesting of a pre-existing right cannot be considered for the
simple reason that such guarantee agreement or the undertaking given were not
registered as required under the Registration Act. Hence, the said documents
could only be used for collateral purposes and cannot be treated to be a
document that had given a pre-existing right upon the applicant as claimed by it.
__________
Page4 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 06:32:09 pm )

A.No.1663 of 2026
He would submit that the claim of the applicant, that the applicant is a bonafide
purchaser is nothing but farce as the order of the attachment had been duly
registered with the Registration Authority which is evinced from the
Encumbrance Certificate which indicates that the order of attachment had been
registered with the Registration Department on 10.09.2020. Hence, a
subsequent purchaser of the properties cannot feign ignorance of an order of
attachment. He would submit that it was the duty of the applicant to have
verified the Encumbrance Certificate before even entering into a transaction of
sale with the second respondent. Only to enforce an Award that the second
respondent had suffered, the first respondent had initiated the execution
proceedings, where also the properties were again attached for bringing the
same to sale.
6. Drawing attention to proximity of the dates of Memorandum of
understanding, guarantee, the initiation of proceedings before the Court and the
compromise that had been arrived at between the parties, he would submit that
the entire transaction that is sought to be relied upon for seeking the rasing of
attachment would itself show that there has been a collusion between the
parties. He would further submit that the earlier compromise that had been
entered into between the parties in the year 2018 cannot be even looked into, as
one of the party to the said compromise had moved before this Court by filing
an application to set aside the said compromise recorded by this Court,
__________
Page5 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 06:32:09 pm )

A.No.1663 of 2026
complaining of fraud and forgery and pending the subsequent application, a
further Memorandum of Compromise had been entered between the parties
which was subsequent to the order of attachment. In that regard, he would
submit that even an existence of a pre-existence rights based upon a
compromise order was only after the order of initial attachment in the year 2020
which was affirmed till the Hon’ble Apex Court in the year 2023. He would
submit that the second respondent had also not brought on record the
compromise decree made under Section 9 in the attachment proceedings that
concluded in the Hon’ble Apex Court. He would further submit that the
applicant would not be entitled for any protection either under Order XXXVIII
Rule 10 or under Section 64 of CPC and in that regard, he would submit that the
applicant is not a bonafide purchaser of the property entitling for raising the
order of attachment. Hence, he prays this Court to dismiss the application filed
by the applicant.
7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels
appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record before
this Court.
8. The attachment of the immoveable properties is sought to be raised
claiming pre-existing rights in the said properties with that of the applicant. The
applicant had relied upon a deed of guarantee that had been executed in the year
__________
Page6 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 06:32:09 pm )

A.No.1663 of 2026
2018 and followed up with the undertaking given by the second respondent, a
Joint Compromise Memo that had been entered between the applicant, the
second respondent and his family members which was recorded by this Court
for disposal of section 9 applications in the year 2018. It is also not disputed that
one of the signatories of the Joint Compromise Memo had approached this
Court seeking to set aside the order passed under Section 9 recording the Memo
of Compromise which application was also disposed of by recording a further
Memo of Compromise between the parties and such further compromises were
entered between the parties on 23.09.2021. Based upon which the further
application to set aside the earlier came to be disposed of particularly on the
strength of the said compromise.
9. In the present case, the property was originally attached by this Court
on 12.03.2020 in A.No.5210 of 2019 at the instance of the first respondent in an
application under Section 9 filed against the second respondent, on failure of the
second respondent to furnish security. Thereafter, arbitration proceedings were
initiated and before the learned Arbitrator a further order of attachment came to
be passed and also came to be registered with the jurisdictional Sub-Registrar
on 10.09.2020. Admittedly, the applicant had purchased the property in the year
2021.
10. Section 64 CPC holds that a alienation of a property after an
__________
Page7 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 06:32:09 pm )

A.No.1663 of 2026
attachment to be void, however, Sub-Section (2) would exclude a contract for
such transfer or delivery entered into and registered before the order of
attachment. Order XXXVIII Rule 10 would envisage that the attachment before
a judgment in the given case would not affect the rights that existed prior to the
order of attachment in respect of the persons who are not parties to the
proceedings under which the property had been attached.
11. The applicant claims a pre-existing right based upon a guarantee and
the subsequent Joint Compromise Memo which culminated in disposal of
Section 9 application filed by the applicant as against the second respondent. It
is true that a pre-existing right before an order of attachment can aid the benefit
of holder of such pre-existing right over the order of attachment. But, however,
Section 64 mandates that such a contract of transfer or delivery entered should
have been registered before the attachment. Admittedly, in the present case, the
deed of guarantee or the undertaking which are the relevant documents that
have been claimed to vest a pre-existing right to the applicant are not registered
documents.
12. It is further to be noted that based upon the agreement that had been
entered upon between the applicant and the second respondent and based upon
the guarantee and Memorandum of Understanding, the applicant had initiated
Section 9 proceedings as against the Second respondent and others in which a
__________
Page8 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 06:32:09 pm )

A.No.1663 of 2026
Joint Compromise Memo had been entered to between the parties in the year
2018 based upon which the said Section 9 applications came to be dismissed.
This fact was also sought to be pleated for continuation of the pre-existing right
of the applicant which had occurred prior to the order of attachment. It should
be noted that the said order recording the Joint Memo of Compromise was
sought to be negated by one of the parties to the said Memo of Compromise by
filing a further application before this Court to set aside the said orders on the
ground of fraud and forgery. In the said proceedings the documents were
directed to be sent for forensic examination and in that regard an Advocate
Commissioner was also appointed. Thereafter, the parties have again entered
into a fresh Joint Memorandum of Compromise on which basis the applications
to recall were also disposed of. The conduct of the parties in those proceedings
would only indicate that the earlier Joint Memo of Compromise in the year
2018, upon which initial Section 9 applications which were disposed of were
never acted upon and only based upon the subsequent Joint Memo of
Compromise Sale Deeds have been executed and it is pertinent to note that the
second Joint Memo of Compromise that had been entered between the parties
therein was subsequent to the order of attachment.
13. In such an event, this Court is of the considered view that the first
Joint Memorandum of Compromise which was recorded by this Court and
challenged cannot also give a pre-existing right to the applicant. In view of their
__________
Page9 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 06:32:09 pm )

A.No.1663 of 2026
conduct in entering into a fresh Joint Memo of Compromise amounts to giving
up its right and claim based upon the initial Joint Memo of Compromise. Hence,
the claim of the applicant of either of the protection available under Section
64(2) and Order XXXVIII Rule 10 cannot aid to the applicant in the facts of the
present case, since this Court had dealt with the issue on the facts and found that
there had been no pre-existing rights in favour of the applicant as adumbrated
above, this Court refrains itself from dealing with the prepositions that had been
placed across the Bar.
14. For the aforesaid reasons, the application stands 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
__________
Page10 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 06:32:09 pm )

A.No.1663 of 2026
K.KUMARESH BABU, J.
Pbn
A Pre-delivery order made in
A.No.1663 of 2026
in
EP No.122 of 2025
16-10-2026
__________
Page11 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 06:32:09 pm )