The Bombay High Court has rejected an attempt to terminate execution of a film distributors’ association decision directing a ₹23 lakh refund. The Court found a written arbitration agreement and an adjudication procedure requiring a hearing and compliance with natural justice, distinguishing an earlier ruling involving a different film-industry association.
Mumbai: The Bombay High Court on November 5, 2026, dismissed an application by Reshma Ramsay and Anita Ramsay, legal heirs of producer Kiran Ramsay, seeking dismissal of execution proceedings arising from a decision of the Indian Motion Picture Distributors’ Association (IMPDA).
Justice S. M. Modak rejected their contention that the association’s October 14, 2009 decision was not an arbitral award. The order resolves that objection to execution; it does not record completion of recovery of the money.
ALSO READ: Bombay High Court Refers LLP Dispute To Arbitration Despite Absence Of Arbitration Clause
The dispute over the film ‘Good Luck’
The dispute arose from the assignment of theatrical distribution rights for Good Luck by Om Film Company to Royal Screening. The original arrangement involved minimum-guarantee royalty of ₹28.70 lakh for five years. A later communication treated ₹5.70 lakh as the minimum guarantee and the remaining ₹23 lakh as refundable.
The IMPDA adjudication sub-committee subsequently directed Om Film Company and Keshu Ramsay to refund ₹23 lakh. Royal Screening sought execution of that decision. During those proceedings, Kiran Ramsay’s wife and daughter challenged whether the decision could be enforced as an arbitral award.
Why the applicants disputed arbitration
The applicants argued that a later letter concerning postponement of the film’s release contained no arbitration clause. They also questioned whether a complaint to IMPDA amounted to an arbitration reference and whether its sub-committee could function as an arbitral tribunal.
Other objections concerned the producer’s non-membership of IMPDA, the association’s restriction on appearances by lawyers, its power to declare defaulters, and the absence of a notice under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Royal Screening relied on the parties’ earlier signed agreement and their communications to IMPDA. It also pointed out that the award debtor had itself approached the association seeking action against the distributor.
The earlier written clause remained central
Justice Modak found that the parties’ signed letter dated May 15, 2008 contained an arbitration clause referring disputes to IMPDA. The same clause was reproduced in their communication to the association, which also stated that they would not refer disputes to the other film-industry bodies identified there.
Although the later letter did not contain an arbitration clause, the Court rejected the contention that no arbitration agreement existed. Its analysis in paragraph 11 rested on the earlier signed documents, read alongside the parties’ own recourse to IMPDA.
A procedure with the features of judicial adjudication
The Court examined the association’s bye-laws. They provided for registration of a complaint, notice to the defendant, an opportunity for settlement and a hearing before the adjudication committee. The parties could present their case and evidence, and the committee had to follow natural justice.
The rules also permitted disputes involving non-members. In paragraphs 12 and 13, the Court held that the procedure had the features of judicial proceedings. It did not accept the prohibition on appearances through legal practitioners as a ground to challenge the award.
The Court distinguished Shakeel Noorani v. Sanjay Dutt, which involved the Indian Motion Picture Producers’ Association and materially different documents. The distinction turned on the agreement between the parties and the adjudicatory framework, rather than simply their association with the film industry.
Defaulter action and court execution are separate remedies
In paragraph 14, Justice Modak distinguished the adjudication committee’s decision from the executive committee’s power to declare a defaulting party a defaulter. That internal remedy did not exclude recourse to a court to enforce the adjudicated liability.
Concluding that the parties had agreed to arbitration and that the committee was required to follow an adjudicatory procedure, the Court dismissed the application. The finding concerns this agreement and decision; it does not mean every determination by a film-industry association is an arbitral award.
Case Details
Applicants: Reshma Ramsay and Anita Ramsay @ Anu, legal heirs of Kiran Ramsay
Underlying Proceedings: Royal Screening v. Om Film Company & Ors.
Case Number: Interim Application No. 2543 of 2025 in Execution Application No. 1261 of 2016
Court: Bombay High Court, Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction
Bench: Justice S. M. Modak
Decision Date: November 5, 2026
Neutral Citation: 2026:BHC-OS:24101
Outcome: Application seeking dismissal of execution proceedings rejected.
