$~38 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 148/2026, I.A. 9271/2026 (Seeking leave to file additional documents)

AMAZON SELLER SERVICES PVT LTD .....Petitioner Through: Mr Amit Sibal, Senior Advocate with Ms. Sneha Jain, Mr. Devvrat Joshi, Mr. Angad S. Makkar and Mr Ankit Handa, Advocates versus AASHIRVAD CINEMAS & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Nemo CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR

O R D E R

% 07.04.2026 I.A. 9272/2026 (For exemption from filing clearer and proper copies of documents)

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. The Application stands disposed of.

I.A. 9273/2026 (Seeking permission to filed redacted versions of documents)

I.A. 9274/2026 (Seeking leave to file certain documents under a sealed cover)

3. For the reasons stated in these Applications, the same are allowed.

4. The Applications stand disposed of.

O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 148/2026

5. The present Petition has been filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Act, seeking the following reliefs:

“a) Forthwith restrain the Respondents from exploiting including through communicating to the public and/or making available, in any manner, whether themselves or through any third-party, including by way of theatrically releasing, the Impugned Film, whether titled “Drishyam 3” or under any other title, during the pendency of the present dispute;

b) Forthwith restrain the Respondents from, in any manner, circumventing and/or alienating the non-linear internet based rights in the Impugned Film, whether titled “Drishyam 3” or under any other title, including but not limited to engaging with, transacting with, licensing, and / or in any manner granting to any third party any and all non-linear internet-based rights in the Impugned Film, whether titled “Drishyam 3” or under any other title, (the original Malayalam version, as also the Telugu, Kannada, Tamil and Hindi dubbed versions and/or the Hindi remake thereof) during the pendency of the present dispute;

c) Pass an order of ex-parte ad interim injunction in terms of prayer clauses (a) to (b) made hereinabove;

b. Pass any other order(s) as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case.”

6. Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner contends that the parties have entered into a Master Video Licence Agreement dated

16.10.2020 , which incorporates an “Amazon Option” clause, in terms of which, in respect of any future titles relating to the popular Malayalam version of “Drishyam”, the Respondents were obligated, in the first instance, to notify the Petitioner and engage with it in negotiations regarding the renewal of the licence of existing titles or licensing of rights in such Future Titles. It is submitted that upon such notification, and upon the Petitioner confirming its intent to negotiate, the parties were required to undertake exclusive good faith negotiations for a period of sixty (60) days, during which the Respondents were precluded from engaging with any third party. It is further contended that upon expiry of the said exclusivity period, in the event of any third-party offer, the Respondents were mandated to

2 Agreement

notify the Petitioner within three (03) days, and the Petitioner retained a right to match such offer within ten (10) days from the date of such notification. Learned Senior Counsel contends that the present dispute arises out of the invocation and operation of the aforesaid contractual mechanism.

7. Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner further submits that, in terms of the aforesaid contractual framework, the Petitioner, at the initial stage, did not exercise its right of first refusal under Clause (c) of the “Amazon Option”. However, upon being notified by the Respondents on 03.03.2026 of a third-party offer, the Petitioner exercised its contractual right to match the said offer within the stipulated period.

8. It is contended that consequent to the exercise of such right, the parties entered