Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, C.KUMARAPPAN, JJ.
The Official Assignee High Court, Madras – Petitioner
Versus
S. Arjunlal Sunderdas (Deceased) – Respondent
E.P.No.137 of 2025 in Application No.162 of 2016 in I.P.No.25 of 2014
Decided On : 10-12-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. prohibition of movie release due to unpaid decree. (Para 1 , 2 , 4) |
| 2. multiple execution petitions and attachment orders filed. (Para 3) |
| 3. arguments regarding the failure to settle the decree. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. examination of the respondent's compliance history. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 5. analysis of the respondent's financing claims vs. settlement. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 6. requirement for courts to expedite execution proceedings. (Para 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 7. judgment debtor's delays lead to lack of further leniency. (Para 18) |
| 8. final order to prohibit movie release until decree satisfaction. (Para 19) |
ORDER :
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
1. The present application has been instituted to prohibit the release of the movie “Vaa Vaathiyar” that is set to release on 05.12.2025 initially and currently on 12.12.2025 and to attach the proceeds of the movie towards satisfaction of the decree amount of Rs.21,78,50,000/- as prayed for under Order 21 Rule 43 of Code of Civil Procedure.
2. The application has been moved by the Official Assignee, High Court, Madras in the execution proceedings in E.P.No.137 of 2025 in A.No.162 of 2016 in I.P.No.25 of 2014. After complete trial, a Decree came to be passed on 29.08.2019 and the 2nd respondent was directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,35,00,000/- with interest @ 18% per annum from 23.12.2013 till date of realization with cost of recovery proceedings. As per the Official Assignee, the property belonging to the 2nd respondent came to be settled by him on 27.05.2022 in the name of his wife to avoid attachment in the execution proceedings.
3. E.P.No.88 of 2022 has been filed to recover the decree amount of Rs.26,34,41,753/- and for attachment of the Bank account and attachment order was passed and lien marked on 13.09.2022. On 08.09.2022, an Application No.4953 of 2022 was filed for disclosure of assets. However, the 2nd respondent did not disclose the asset as per the form provided under the Code of Civil Procedure. Thereafter, E.P.No.78 of 2023 has been filed to attach movie ‘Poly Shetty’ and a conditional order was passed, directing the 2nd respondent to deposit a sum of Rs.1,00,00,000/-. Another E.P.No.103 of 2023 was filed for attachment of movie ‘Buildup’, in which a conditional order was passed by this Court on 10.11.2023 to deposit a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- and the income tax refund amount. E.P.No.26 of 2024 was filed to attach movie ‘Rabel’ and this Court passed an order on 18.03.2024 to deposit the decree amount. Challenging the said decree order dated 18.03.2024, the 2nd respondent filed SLP No.4094 of 2023, which came to be dismissed by the Apex Court on 02.09.2024. Subsequently, E.P.Nos.64 and 65 of 2024 came to be filed by the Official Assignee to pay proceeds before release of movies ‘Thangalaan’ and ‘Kanguva’ and this Court passed an order in the year 2024 to deposit a sum of Rs.1,00,00,000/- each before release of each movie. Subsequently, the matter was taken before the Division Bench of this Court, in which an order was passed on 11.11.2024 to pay a sum of Rs.20,00,00,000/- on or before 13.11.2024. A.Nos.5875 and 5694 of 2024 have been filed to modify the earlier order and an undertaking affidavit was filed by the 2nd respondent that the 2nd respondent is ready and willing for one-time settlement. An undertaking affidavit was filed by the 2nd respondent to pay Rs.3,75,00,000/- on 14.11.2024 and thereafter, on 09.12.2024, an affidavit was filed, seeking extension of time to pay the said amount of Rs.3,75,00,000/-, but no time has been mentioned in the affidavit or prayer seeking extension of time.
4. The 2nd respondent filed another Application No.6520 of 2024, seeking extension of time to pay the amount of Rs.3,75,00,000/-, which was dismissed by this Court on 24.01.2025. The Official Assignee was permitted to execute the decree, since one-time settlement offered by the 2nd respondent became lapsed. Finally, Court passed an order on 19.02.2025 to execute the decree, since the entire efforts taken
The court reinforced that repeated failures by a judgment debtor to comply with financial orders warrant strict enforcement of decrees, including prohibitions on releasing related assets.
Interim relief denied due to lack of prima facie case regarding applicant's rights over a film's revenues and established contractual breaches.
The burden lies on the decree-holder to prove that the judgment-debtor has the means to pay the decretal amount and is willfully evading payment, following the procedures laid out in the CPC.
Amendments to execution petitions may correct defects; simultaneous execution against debtor's person and property allowed under judicial discretion per CPC.
The court established that the execution of a decree for payment of money must prioritize the sale of the judgment debtor's property before resorting to arrest and detention, and that any order for a....
A decree in a summary suit can be set aside under special circumstances if the defendant demonstrates triable issues. Compliance with deposit conditions is essential for allowing a defense.
Arrest warrants against judgment debtors cannot be issued without exhausting property execution options as mandated by CPC; reasoned orders are essential in judicial decisions.
Arrest of a judgment-debtor for non-payment requires evidence of bad faith or willful neglect, and other execution methods must be considered first.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
