TSR FILMS PRIVATE LIMITED vs SANDHYA THEATRE
- Court
- Madras High Court
Arb A.No.773 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON
PRONOUNCED ON
03.09.2026
16.10.2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU
Arb Appln.No.773 of 2026
M/s.TSR Films Private Limited,
Rep., by its authorised signatory,
Mr.D.Teddy Joshua,
No.2, (Old No.29), Lake Area,
First Cross Street, Nungambakkam,
Chennai – 600 034.
… Applicant
Vs
Sandhya Theatre,
th th
No.145, 7 Main, 5 Block,
Near Good Shepherd School,
Jayanagar, Bangalore – 560 041. ..Respondent(s)
PRAYER:- This Arbitration Application had been filed under Order XIV Rule
8 of O.S.Rules r/w Section 9 (ii) (d) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,
1996 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.
For Appellant(s): Mr.Dhanaram Ramachandran
for M/s.D.R.Law Chambers
For Respondent(s): Mr.C.Jagadish
------
__________
Page 1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 06:32:11 pm )
Arb A.No.773 of 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
__________
Page 2 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 06:32:11 pm )
Arb A.No.773 of 2026
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
__________
Page 3 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 06:32:11 pm )
Arb A.No.773 of 2026
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.
__________
Page 4 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 06:32:11 pm )
Arb A.No.773 of 2026
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.
__________
Page 5 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 06:32:11 pm )
Arb A.No.773 of 2026
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
__________
Page 6 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 06:32:11 pm )
Arb A.No.773 of 2026
K.KUMARESH BABU, J.
PBN
A Pre-delivery Order made in
Arb Appln.No.773 of 2026
16.10.2026
__________
Page 7 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 06:32:11 pm )