Madras High Court restrains release of Malayalam film ‘Neekkam’ amid financier’s ₹15.91-crore claim

The applicant claimed to have advanced ₹9 crore under a production agreement dated 1 February 2025 and a further ₹6,91,60,000 under a supplementary production agreement dated 28 March 2025 for a film’s production

Alleging that no amount had been repaid despite the film’s release and exploitation, the applicant invoked the agreements’ arbitration clauses

He sought an injunction against the respondents’ release or exploitation of the subsequent film Neekkam, relying on clause 5(d) of the supplementary agreement, and separately sought security for a claim of ₹15,91,60,000 with interest

Although the respondents had been served and had earlier appeared through counsel, they did not contest the applications

Whether interim relief should restrain the respondents from releasing or exploiting Neekkam pending protection of the applicant’s interests and resolution of the disputes through arbitration

Whether the first respondent should be directed to furnish security for the applicant’s monetary claim pending arbitration

The applications were brought under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which provides for interim measures by a court in connection with arbitral proceedings; the applicant relied on the arbitration clauses in the production and supplementary production agreements

The Court also preserved the applicant’s liberty to seek interim relief from the arbitral tribunal under Section 17 of the Act

The Court noted the applicant’s advances, the alleged non-repayment, the contractual provision relied on to recover a payment deficit through rights in subsequent movies, and the respondents’ failure to contest the applications

It consequently granted the requested injunction against exploitation of Neekkam

As that interim order had been granted, the Court considered a separate direction to furnish security unnecessary, while leaving the applicant free to seek further relief under Section 17 if required

The Court declined to order security in Arb. Appln. No.1196 of 2026, preserved liberty to apply under Section 17, and disposed of that application