Bombay High Court Appoints Sole Arbitrator In Dispute Over Sonakshi Sinha Starrer 'JATADHARA' Partnership Accounts

The Bombay High Court has appointed a sole arbitrator to adjudicate disputes arising from the production, financing, management and commercial exploitation of JATADHARA, the Sonakshi Sinha-Sudheer Babu starrer, holding that the parties had agreed to refer unresolved disputes to arbitration under their Partnership Deed.

Justice Amit Borkar examined the Partnership Deed dated April 1, 2025 and its Clause 11, which provides that after an attempt at amicable resolution, an unresolved dispute “shall be referred to arbitration”. The court appointed advocate Harsh Moorjani as the sole arbitrator after the parties failed to mutually appoint one under the mechanism provided in the Deed.

Girish Narang had started developing JATADHARA, tentatively titled so at the time, in or about 2024 through his proprietorship concern, Ess Kay Gee Entertainment. He later entered into the Partnership Deed with Virendra Arora, Samast Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. and Mindsweep Ideas Pvt. Ltd. for production, financing, management and commercial exploitation of the film.

According to Narang, Samast Financial Services and Mindsweep Ideas gradually took responsibility for the partnership's financial administration during production. They coordinated accounting work, supervised the use of partnership funds and acted as the main financial interface with Zee Studios.

After the film was completed and commercially released, it became necessary to reconcile the project's accounts. Narang alleged that certain amounts payable by Zee Studios remained outstanding, while GST and TDS compliances and contractual liabilities were also pending.

Narang sought complete books of account, ledgers, bank statements, statutory records and other financial documents from the two respondent companies. After meetings and correspondence failed to resolve the dispute, he issued a Section 21 arbitration notice on December 15, 2025. He later issued a Final Legal Notice on March 14, 2026, but the disputes remained unresolved.

Before the High Court, the two respondent companies argued that Narang had not made the amicable settlement attempt required under Clause 11. They also disputed the verification and proof of his accounts and monetary claims.

Justice Borkar rejected the objection. The Court noted that Clause 11 did not prescribe any particular manner or number of meetings for attempting an amicable settlement. It found that the parties had held meetings and exchanged correspondence, and that even after the arbitration notice, the respondents sought time to resolve the disputes amicably.

“The disputes regarding books of account, financial administration, use of Partnership funds, reconciliation, outstanding liabilities, statutory compliances and contractual obligations arise from the working and implementation of the Partnership. Therefore, they come within the scope of Clause 11. However, this finding does not mean that every amount or every document mentioned by the Applicant is proved. This Court is not deciding those questions at this stage.”', the court noted.

The Court said disputed questions concerning accounts, amounts payable to Nikhil Nanda Motion Pictures LLP, amounts receivable from Zee Studios, GST and TDS compliances and liability required evidence and could not be finally decided at the Section 11 stage. It said the Court should not conduct a “mini-trial” into such disputed facts.

The Court further held that the parties' failure to mutually appoint an arbitrator triggered the mechanism under Clause 11(iii), bringing the case within Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act.

Accordingly, Harsh Moorjani was appointed sole arbitrator to adjudicate disputes arising out of and in terms of Clause 11 of the Partnership Deed. The parties were directed to appear before him for directions on pleadings and hearings, with arbitral costs and fees to be borne equally in the first instance, subject to the final award on costs.

For Applicant: Advocates Amani Khan

For Respondents: Advocates Vidhi Rathi, Shalu Jain i/by The Legal Co