Kerala Court Refuses To Refer Nivin Pauly's 'Ramachandra Boss & Co' & 'Malayali From India' Film Disputes To Arbitration

Sri. Nanda Krishna M., I Additional Munsiff dismissed Stephen's petition filed under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act after noting that some of the disputes involved cannot be subjected to arbitration.

The disputes raised also include an alleged defamatory remark made by Stephen regarding Pauly in a public event held on May 2, 2025.

The suit filed by Pauly and his production company seeks rendition of accounts and other reliefs. It primarily arose from a production agreement entered into between the parties in September, 2022 for the film Ramachandra Boss & Co.

According to Pauly, the agreement was that he and his production house (the plaintiffs) would be responsible for managing production on a profit-sharing basis whereas Stephen and his company (the defendants) were responsible for theatrical distribution.

Nivin Pauly contends that Stephen and his company withheld vital financial information regarding revenues and expenses, resulting in him being unable to verify the film's true monetary performance and to obtain rightful profits.

He further contends that a similar tactic was employed with respect to another film 'Malayali from India' performed without a written agreement in which case also the defendants claimed financial loss without any proof, leading to a Rs. 7.5 lakh liability on Pauly. Moreover, even though they paid Rs. 5.5 lakhs of a Rs. 10 lakh loan, the defendants retained undated security cheques, claimed Pauly.

After the filing of the suit, Stephen filed the present petition alleging that the Munsiff court did not have jurisdiction to entertain the suit due to an express arbitration clause in the Supplementary Agreement entered into between the parties in August 2023.

Pauly objected to the petition by stating that they filed a composite suit for rendition of accounts and the same contains several causes of action, not limited to the film 'Ramachandra Boss & Co.' or the 2022 agreement. According to Pauly, the same included a claim for the defamation, criminal coercion as well as the urgent equitable relief against unlawful encashment of security cheques.

Further, it was argued that the arbitration clause relied on by Stephen uses the word 'may' so there is no mandate to refer the dispute to arbitration.

After hearing the parties, the court noted that Stephen had not produced the original arbitration agreement or its certified copy while also not having a case that the original is with Pauly. Since no petition also has been filed to call upon Pauly to produce the original agreement or its certified copy, the court opined that there is no compliance with Section 8 of the Arbitration Act.

The court also examined the arbitration clause and remarked that there is no mandate for referring to arbitration whereas the mandate is for amicable resolution through mutual consultation.

“It follows that there is no valid arbitration agreement…which would exclude the jurisdiction of this court… Arbitration clause in…supplementary agreement would not cover the disputes involved in the suit including the allegation as to defamation and reliefs sought over the same. Therefore, it cannot be said that the disputes involved in the present suit is arbitrable,” the court observed.

Thus, it dismissed Stephen's petition to refer the dispute to arbitration.

Nivin Pauly and M/s. Pauly Junior Pictures LLP are represented by Advocates Sukesh Roy, Meera Menon and Divya A.R.

Listin Stephen and M/s Magic Frames are represented by Shameem Ahamed, Ahamed Iqbal, and T.V. Sreejith.

Case No: I.A. No. 2/2025 in O.S. No. 477/2025

Case Title: M/s Magic Frames and Anr. v. M/s. Pauly Junior Pictures LLP and Anr.

Click to Read/Download Order