Dawn Pictures directed to secure ₹8.39 crore in Sudha Kongara’s disputed film-remuneration claim pending arbitration

The applicants claimed that, under a Director Agreement with the respondent, they were owed an unpaid balance of ₹8.39 crore from agreed remuneration of ₹15 crore.

The respondent disputed liability, relying on a tripartite agreement recording full and final satisfaction of the applicants’ remuneration.

After earlier arbitrator appointments resulted in recusals and an ex parte security direction was recalled, the parties’ counsel were heard on the merits of the applications.

1. Whether the respondent should be directed to secure the applicants’ disputed claim of ₹8.39 crore pending arbitration.

2. Whether the requested injunctions relating to the release, exploitation, or creation of third-party interests in Parasakthi were necessary pending arbitration.

The applicants invoked the principle governing interim measures under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, submitting that such relief should not be withheld on mere technicalities; they also relied on a decision reported at 2022 (2) SCC 178, but the judgment does not identify that decision by name or set out a specific rule from it.

The Court treated the disputed payment claim as one requiring interpretation of the parties’ agreements in arbitration, rather than determination on these applications, and considered a bank guarantee an appropriate means of protecting the applicants’ interest pending those proceedings.

The Court found that the central dispute was whether remuneration remained unpaid, with the applicants relying on invoices and the respondent relying on a tripartite agreement recording full satisfaction.

Resolving that conflict required interpreting the agreements, which the Court considered more appropriate for the arbitral proceedings than for the interim applications.

It nevertheless considered the applicants’ interest capable of protection by requiring security for the claimed amount.

Because that security was ordered, the Court considered it unnecessary to adjudicate the injunction applications.

The arbitration application was disposed of, and the two injunction applications were closed without adjudication on their merits; there was no order as to costs.