Madras High Court Upholds Arbitral Award Directing MediaOne To Pay ₹1.23 Crore In 'Maatraan' Film Dispute

In a rejection of a challenge to an arbitral award, the Madras High Court has upheld the Sole Arbitrator's decision directing MediaOne Global Entertainment Ltd. to pay over 1.23 crores in relation to an agreement over the release of the film “Maatraan”. Dissmissing a plethora of arguments contended by the Petitioner, Justice N. Anand Venkatesh on 28th November 2025 ruled that a guarantee deed, claimed as “comfort letter” by the Petitioner, was not a mere formality but a “binding commitment” to cover financial loss, and in fact was enforceable. The dispute arose out of a film distribution deal for the Tamil movie “Maatraan” entered into between Vishnu Associates and Eros International Media Ltd., wherein, Vishnu Associates paid ₹2 crore upfront to distribute the Tamil and Telugu versions of the film in Karnataka. When the Tamil version could not be released due to local unrest owing to the Cauvery water dispute, the distributor invoked force majeure. Around this time, MediaOne stepped in and signed a guarantee deed stating that in case Vishnu Associates failed to recover ₹2 crore, the company would compensate the shortfall within 90 days. Relying on this assurance, the Telugu version was released. The movie, however, did not run well in the theatres and suffered loss, paving way for invocation of the arbitration clause. The Arbitration proceedings ended with the sole arbitrator ruling in favour of Vishnu Associates, awarding Rs.1,23,04,231/- along with interst at 12% against MediaOne. Aggrieved by the decision, MediaOne approached the High Court, with M.T Saikrishnan, Counsel for the Petitioner, arguing that their company was a non-signatory to the underlying distribution agreement and the guarantee deed could not be invoked since it lacked the signature of the principal debtor. They also brought to the Court's notice, the lack of sufficient evidence for computing the losses, the expiry of guarantee the post the publishing in Tamil version and that absence of consonance with section 126 of the Contract Act which requires three parties for a valid guarantee – a creditor, principal debtor and surety. On the other hand, the counsel for the Respondents, Mr. Avinash Wadhwani countered by relying on the contents of the letter which clearly pledged to make good any uncovered portion of the 2 said crores. Citing documentation demonstrating MediaOne's active assistance with the entire release, revenue accounts and mediated agreements, the counsel for the respondents contended that these inscriptions portray a deliberate promise rather than a mere “comfort letter”. He reminded the court that MediaOne had earlier relied on the underlying distribution agreement when requesting for arbitration — which meant it could not then repudiate the same agreement. Rejecting the arguments of the Petitioner, Justice N. Anand Venkatesh stated that the agreement made explicit reference to the distributor's investment, the risks assumed, and MediaOne's choice to intervene due to the Tamil version's delayed release. Additionally, MediaOne could not now assert that the agreement did not apply because it had previously maintained that disagreements under the agreement were to be arbitrated. The court stated that “It is too late in the day for the petitioner to wriggle out of the guarantee deed which the petitioner would want to call as a comfort letter”. Criticising the petitioner for “aprobating” and “reprobating”, the Court remarked that the “award stands on a firm foundation of evidence” with thorough scrutiny of all correspondence and financial accounts by the arbitrator to arrive at the right decision. Thus, finding no merit in the challenge to the arbitral award, the court held that the scope under section 34 does not provide it with the power to substitute its own view for that of an arbitrator. As the Petitioner failed to prove that their case fell under any of the grounds mentioned under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the Court dismissed the petition with directing costs of 1,50,000 to be paid to the Respondent. Case Title: M/s MediaOne Global Entertainment Ltd. v. M/s Vishnu Associates & Ors.Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 459 Case No.: Arb O.P (Com.Div.) No. 34 of 2021 Coram: Justice N. Anand Venkatesh Decision Date: 28 November 2025 Click Here To Read/Download Order

Madras High Court Upholds Arbitral Award Directing MediaOne To Pay ₹1.23 Crore In 'Maatraan' Film Dispute

Shivani Ps

Tags