The Delhi High Court has granted interim relief to Amazon Prime Video, restraining Mohanlal’s Aashirvad Cinemas from entering into third-party agreements for OTT rights in the Drishyam film franchise. The dispute stems from a 2020 Master Video Licence Agreement that gave Amazon preferential rights over future titles.
Published Date – 22 April 2026, 11:15 PM
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court recently granted interim relief to Amazon Prime Video and restrained Mohanlal’s production house, Aashirvad Cinemas, from entering into any agreement with third parties for the creation or exploitation of over-the-top (OTT) rights in the “Drishyam” film franchise.
While hearing a petition filed by Amazon Seller Services Pvt Ltd under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, a single-judge Bench of Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar held that a prima facie case was made out in favour of Amazon and that the balance of convenience and likelihood of irreparable harm also lay in its favour.
“Accordingly, till the next date of hearing, the Respondents are restrained from creating or otherwise dealing with any third-party rights in respect of the non-linear internet-based rights in the film tentatively titled ‘Drishyam 3’,” the Delhi HC ordered.
Amazon, through senior advocate Amit Sibal, contended that the dispute arises out of a Master Video Licence Agreement dated October 16, 2020, which contained an “Amazon Option” clause granting it preferential rights over future titles in the popular Malayalam “Drishyam” franchise.
It was submitted that, under the contractual framework, the respondents were obligated to notify Amazon and engage in good-faith negotiations for a specified period before dealing with third parties.
The petitioner further argued that even after the expiry of the exclusivity period, it retained a contractual right to match any third-party offer. According to Amazon, negotiations were ongoing, and draft terms were exchanged when the respondents, through an email dated March 31, 2026, “unilaterally terminated the negotiations”, claiming that Amazon’s rights had “fallen away” and that they would proceed with alternative offers.
In its order, Justice Shankar recorded the contention that such a position was “wholly untenable and contrary to the contractual arrangement governing the parties”, particularly when the petitioner had already exercised its right to match the competing offer.
Amazon further argued that there was an imminent apprehension that the respondents would create third-party rights in respect of “Drishyam 3”, thereby causing irreparable harm and rendering any eventual arbitral award ineffective.
Referring to the settled principles governing interim relief under Section 9, the Delhi High Court reiterated that such jurisdiction is limited to granting protective measures and does not extend to adjudicating the merits of the underlying dispute.
Citing the Supreme Court’s ruling in ArcelorMittal Nippon Steel India Ltd. v. Essar Bulk Terminal Ltd., Justice Shankar reiterated that interim relief is governed by the “triple test” of a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury.
“The Petitioner has made out a case for grant of ad-interim protection… the essential ingredients for grant of interim relief… stand established in favour of the Petitioner,” the Delhi HC observed.
Accordingly, it directed that, till the next date of hearing, the respondents shall not “create or otherwise deal with any third-party rights in respect of the non-linear internet-based rights” in the film.
Justice Shankar has issued notice to the respondents and directed them to file their reply within a week, with the matter listed for further hearing on April 20.
