agreement, as also the material brought on record, and calls for no interference by this Court. Further, all the objections raised by the petitioner were duly considered by learned Additional District Judge while passing the impugned judgment, which is well reasoned. It is also contended that limitation would not commence from the date the film was released in November, 2008, or the email dated 29.11.2008 was received by the respondent. It would only commence from the date the dispute actually arose between the parties, that was when the petitioner refused to pay the claimed amount to the respondent-claimant in May, 2010. The arbitration application was filed within three years therefrom, on 25.03.2013. Still further, he has contended that the respondent-claimant was defrauded by the petitioner. The film was released by the petitioner by projecting himself as producer which was in violation of the agreement, and all proceeds were misappropriated by him. Even after release of the film, the petitioner failed to furnish accounts and not a penny was paid to the respondentclaimant, leaving him high and dry. On account of this blatant violation of the agreement, he rendered himself liable to pay the amount of ₹1.7 crores to the respondent-claimant as per terms of the agreement irrespective of the actual revenue generated. On the award of interest by the Arbitrator, learned counsel contends that it was within the Arbitrator’s jurisdiction to award interest, and the claimant had claimed the amount with eighteen per cent interest per annum. In support of the contentions, he has referred to the Supreme Court judgments in Arif Azim Company Limited v. Aptech Limited , (2024) 5 SCC 313; B and T AG v. Ministry of Defence , (2024) 5 SCC 358; and State of Haryana and others v. S.L. Arora and Company , (2010) 3 SCC 690.
