Supreme Court Orders Status Quo, Asset Disclosure In IMAX–E-City Arbitration Dispute

The Supreme Court on Friday ordered the E-City group to maintain status quo over all its assets and disclose details of its movable and immovable properties while taking up a fresh challenge to the Bombay High Court's decision that revived enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in favour of IMAX Corporation.

A bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and K V Viswanathan issued notice on a special leave petition filed by E-City Real Estates Pvt. Ltd. and another group entity, challenging the Bombay High Court's December 30, 2025 decision allowing enforcement of the arbitral awards.

“We further direct the petitioners to maintain status quo as regards all their movable and immovable assets till the next date of hearing”

The court also asked the managing director of the petitioners to file a personal undertaking assuring compliance while clarifying that the restraint would not affect the normal functioning of the companies.

The dispute goes back more than two decades to a 2000 agreement under which IMAX leased six IMAX theatre systems to E-City for a 20-year term.

After E-City failed to meet its obligations, IMAX initiated arbitration before an International Chamber of Commerce tribunal in London. The tribunal passed a liability award in February 2006, followed by a quantum award in August 2007, directing E-City to pay IMAX USD 9,406,148, along with interest and arbitration costs.

Years of litigation followed in Indian courts, including repeated objections on limitation and attempts by the E-City group to resist enforcement of the awards. In its December 2025 judgment, the Bombay High Court restored the enforcement proceedings, holding that limitation objections could not be reopened at a later stage and that the principle of res judicata applied even between different stages of the same enforcement petition.

Before the Supreme Court on Friday, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for IMAX, stated that since the matter was now pending before the apex court, the company would not proceed with the execution of the arbitral awards for the time being. Recording the statement, the bench granted liberty to both sides to file their submissions.