IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 02-02-2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH AND A,No,4569 of 2025 Sanjay Lalwani Proprietor of M/s.S.N.Media Having Office at No.13, Clemens Road Pursawalkam, Chennai 600 007 Applicant(s)

Vs

1.M/s.Global Infotainment Rep. by its Managing Director Mr.Michael Rayyapan No.76, New GRT Srinivwas Apartments, S-2, II Floor

3rd Street, Baskar Colony, Virugambakkam Chennai 600 092

2.M/s.Maria Joseph John Peter Proprietor of M/s.Annai Film Production No.15/C, AGS Colony, 1^st Street, Velachery, Chennai Respondent(s)

PRAYER To grant an order of Interim Injunction restraining the Respondent, their men, agents, representatives and/or any person acting through or under them, from releasing the movie titled THANAL in any manner whatsoever, pending disposal of the present Application.

For Applicant(s): Mr.Nithyaesh Natraj For Respondent(s): Mr.B.Kannan for R1

ORDER

This application was filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“the Act”) for an interim injunction restraining the respondents from releasing a movie titled “Thanal” in any manner and in any platform.

2.This application came up for admission on 11.09.2025 and this Court, after considering the arguments addressed on the side of the applicant and the materials available on record, passed the following order :

“This application has been filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for an interim injunction restraining the respondent, their men, agents or representatives from releasing the movie titled “Thanal” in any manner and in any platform.

2. This Court carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and perused the materials available on record.

3. The parties are involved in distinct business transactions governed by two independent Agreements dated 22.06.2017 and 23.04.2018, wherein, the 1^st respondent acted in the capacity of assignor in two different films. It is alleged that the 1^st respondent failed to perform the obligation under the said agreements and thereby, causing a loss to the tune of Rs.3crores to the applicant. The parties thereafter took measures to amicably settle the dispute and the 1^st respondent agreed to repay a sum of Rs.2crores to the applicant. The 1^st respondent also made a business offer, where he sought for financial assistance from the applicant towards the production of his next film and in return, agreed to settle the sums borrowed for the said film from exploitation of digital and satellite rights of that film, even prior to the release of that film. Pursuant to the same, a Business Agreement dated 01.01.2020 was entered into between the parties. As per this agreement, the 1^st respondent agreed to settle the amount of Rs.2crores that arose out of the earlier agreements within 30 days from the date of theatrical release of the film out of the theatrical proceeds of the film. As per Clause 2.11 of the said Business Agreement, the 1^st respondent undertook not to release the film theatrically, without the receipt of the NOC in writing from the applicant. Thereafter, as per the terms of the agreement, the applicant had disbursed a sum of Rs.1,50,00,000/-.

4. The grievance expressed by the applicant is that he became aware of the fact that the movie is attempted to be released, after the teaser of the film was released on 02.09.2025. Upon enquiry, it came to light that the respondents are attempting to release the movie in violation/breach of the Business Agreement dated 01.01.2020, without the receipt of the NOC from the applicant. The applicant has not been settled the earlier dues and further, the respondents are attempting to defeat the rights of the applicant by releasing the movie and knocking off the entire proceeds. It is under these circumstances, the present application came to be filed before this Court.

5. Taking into consideration the facts and circums