'Baawla' Song Payment Row | Haryana Court Orders Badshah To Deposit Additional ₹50 Lakh, Raising Total Security To ₹2.2 Crore

With this latest direction of the court (dated July 22), the total security amount the rapper has been ordered to furnish now stands at ₹2.2 crore.

The Court clarified that this ₹50 lakh is over and above the ₹1.7 crore already directed to be deposited earlier in the proceedings. Both deposits would remain under restraint from encashment or encumbrance until further orders of the Court.

Commercial Court/ADJ-1, Karnal, Jasbir Singh Kundu passed this direction while partly allowing Unisys' petition under Section 9 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking interim measures to secure financial claims of ₹2,88,28,986/- calculated up to 11.06.2024, prior to commencement of arbitral proceedings.

Briefly put, on June 30, 2021, Badshah executed a 'Producer & Line Producer Work for Hire Agreement - Baawla' with the Petitioner (Unisys Infosolutions Pvt. Ltd), agreeing to pay ₹1,05,00,000/- for promotional activities and ₹65,00,000/- for completion of the video.

For context, Unisys is a leading player in the media and a pioneer in delivering & distributing Indian regional music on worldwide digital platforms as well as full-length films

Badshah and his talent agency [TM Talent Management LLP (respondent no. 2)] released the video on July 28, 2021, and uploaded it to YouTube and other social media platforms.

Thereafter, Unisys raised two tax invoices in May 2022 [₹76,70,000/- (inclusive of GST) on May 17 and ₹1,23,90,000/- (inclusive of GST) on May 19], which made the outstanding amount to be ₹2,00,60,000/-. The company alleged no payment was made and issued demand letters on September 30, 2023 and April 15, 2024. This was followed by a notice invoking arbitration on June 11, 2024.

The petition under Section 9 was filed on November 4, 2024, to secure the entire claimed sum, including costs, interest and other expenses, amounting to ₹2,88,28,986/-.

As a stop-gap arrangement, the Court directed respondents to furnish a list of properties equal to the invoice amounts on November 13, 2024. In response, Badshah placed on record an FDR dated May 7, 2025, for ₹1,70,00,000/-. On July 3, 2025, the Court restrained Badshah from encashing or creating any encumbrance on that FDR of Rs. 1.7 crore.

Before the Court, the respondents argued that the petition could not be filed directly before the Commercial Court without pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The Court rejected this argument as it held that petitions involving urgent interim relief are excluded from the Section 12A requirement.

The Court observed that outstanding payments have been subsisting since July 28, 2021 and that Badshah, in his reply, had not admitted his liability for a single penny.

It further recorded that the ₹1.7 crore FDR was 'too short' of the claimed amount and that, from his conduct, apprehension cannot be ruled out that he may transfer, alienate, or sell his entire estate or withdraw the entire balance from bank accounts to defeat the petitioner firm's claim.

The Court found that the preconditions under Order 38 Rule 5 and under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC were satisfied, a prima facie case existed in favour of Unisys existed, and the balance of convenience also tilted in its favour.

Against this backdrop, in addition to the earlier restraint on the ₹1.7 crore FDR, the Court directed Badshah to deposit as security in court an additional FDR in his own name in the sum of ₹50,00,000/- within sixty days, failing which legal consequences would follow.

The earlier restraint on encashment or encumbrance will apply to the additional FDR until further orders.

Furthermore, liberty was granted to Unisys to communicate the order to the concerned bank issuing these FDRs.

The Court, however. clarified thus:

"…the sole object of passing above interim directions is to protect the right of the parties to the proceedings pending final adjudication upon a full-fledged arbitral proceedings and to prevent any other mischief. Any observations made in this regard at this stage do not mean that it would have an impact on merits at the time of final disposal of arbitral proceedings as findings of this court are mere tentative and returned on the basis of the pleadings so far and the documents produced by the parties, which must stand on trial before the Arbitrator and it does not dispense with proving such facts or the documents in arbitral proceedings".