M/S.Flying Horse Pictures v. T.Muruganantham
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 24-02-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P. DHANABAL M/s.Flying Horse Pictures Rep. by its Managing Partners, Mr.S.Hari Baskaran, C/o. Sampathkumar, ..Petitioner(s) Vs T.Muruganantham Designated Partner, M/s.Rockfort Entertainment LLp, ..Contemnor(s) PRAYER: This Contempt petition has been filed under Section 11 of Contempt of Courts Act praying to punish the respondent herein for willfully disobeyed the direction issued by this Court in the Common order dated 30.03.2022 passed in O.A. Nos.847 OF 2021 and O.A.NO.169 OF 2022. For Petitioner(s):
M/s.S.J.Veena,S.Rajesh,A.Manoj For Respondents:
No appearance.
ORDER
This Contempt petition has been filed by the petitioner to punish the respondent for willfully disobeyed the direction issued by this Court through a common order dated 30.03.2022 in O.A. Nos.847 of 2021 and 169 of 2022.
2. According to the petitioner, he is the applicant in O.A. No.847 of 2021 and O.A. No.169 of 2022. He has filed the application in O.A. No.847 of 2021 under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, wherein the respondent, through his counsel, made an undertaking that they will not release the movie namely 'Kuruthi Aattam' and the same was recorded by this Court. Thereafter, the respondent had announced his next film 'Manmadhaleelai' and the same was released on 20.03.2022, in violation of the Arbitration Clause. When he made undertaking in respect of the film 'Kuruthi Aattam', on the other hand, he announced the release of his next film 'Manmadhaleelai'. Therefore, the petitioner filed an application in O.A. No.
169 of 2022 under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act seeking injunction against the respondent from releasing the movie 'Manmadhaleelai' and when the case was taken up for hearing on 13.03.2022, the respondent sought for permission to release the said movie and this Court had taken up both the applications together and passed a common order in O.A Nos.847 of 2021 and 169 of 2022 and disposed of both the applications that the Distributors of movie Manmadhaleelai can release the film on 01.04.2022 as per schedule on condition that they shall deposit proceeds of the collection to an extent of Rs.30 lakhs in an escrow account to be opened on or before 29.04.2022. While so, without complying the order of this Court by depositing a sum of Rs.30 lakhs, the respondent released the movie and not deposited the amount.
Therefore, the petitioner sent a notice dated 28.04.
the quantum of the claim amount is in dispute and no necessity for them to deposit such amount in the escrow account, which is a clear violation of the order dated 13.03.2022. Therefore, this petition has been filed for disobeying the order of this Court.
3. The respondent has not appeared. On the side of the petitioner, he was examined as PW1 and he has deposed about the alleged contempt by disobeying the order of this Court and Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.5 were marked on the side of the petitioner.
4. This Court heard the petitioner side and perused the records.
5. As per the order of this Court dated 13.03.2022, the respondent was permitted to release the film 'Manamadhaleelai' on 01.04.2022 on condition that the proceeds of the collection to an extent of Rs.30 lakhs to be deposited in an escrow account to be opened on or before 29.04.2022 and also the applications can be treated as applications under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act and as regards the deposit of Rs.30 lakhs made pursuant to the order of this Court shall also be considered as deposit pursuant to the order of Hon'ble Arbitral Tribunal, so that when variation of the same is sought by one and or other party / parties, the same shall be dealt with without being stifled by judicial orders in any manner. Therefore, there are no particulars in
the petition as to whether any application under Section 17 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act was presented and any order passed by the Arbitral Tribunal. The respondent has also not appeared.
6. Further, the petitioner is also not in a position to clarify as about the arbitral proceedings as to whether any arbitral proceedings are still pending and what is the outcome of the result of the Arbitration proceedings. Therefore, it is not appropriate to proceed this Contempt petition further and without any particulars, it is not appropriate to hold that the respondent committed wilful disobedience of the order passed by this Court and the petitioner is at liberty to file fresh contempt petition by providing all the particulars.
7. With the above said observations, this Contempt petition is dismissed. 24-02-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order MJS
P.DHANABAL, J.
MJS 24-02-2026