Lack of corroboration for loan claim and acknowledgment of invoices influenced the rejection of Plaintiff's claim and partial allowance of Defendant's counter claim.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: The suit is filed under Order VI Rule 1 of High Court O.S. Rules r/w Order VII Rule 1 of CPC to direct the Defendant to pay the Plaintiff a sum of Rs.23,70,05,222/- (Rupees Twenty Three Crores Seventy Lakhs and Five Thousand Two Hundred and Twenty Two only) with interest @ 30% per annum on the above amount from the date of plaint till realization and for the costs.)

1. The suit was filed seeking to recover a sum of Rs.23,70,05,222/- with interest thereon at 30% per annum from the date of plaint till the date of realization. The Defendant filed a written statement along with a counter claim for a sum of Rs.1,58,66,964/- with interest thereon at 18% per annum from the date of the suit.

2. The Plaintiff entered into an Agreement dated 11.12.2017 (the 2.0 Agreement) with the Defendant for exclusive theatrical rights and non- exclusive TV, satellite, VCD and DVD rights to exhibit and distribute the movie titled ''2.0'' in the Tamil, Telugu and Hindi languages in the territory of Malaysia. The 2.0 Agreement specified that the consideration of Rs.20 crore was payable by the Plaintiff to the Defendant in relation to the above. According to the Plaintiff, the Defendant agreed to pay interest on the sum of Rs.20 crore in view of the abnormal delay of more than 12 months in releasing the movie. Although the Plaintiff proposed to charge interest at 36% per annum, after negotiations, the Plaintiff states that the Defendant agreed to pay interest at 30% per annum. It is further stated that the Plaintiff provided additional funding of Rs.12 crore to the Defendant to meet its financial commitments in relation to the movie ''2.0''. Thus, the Plaintiff states that it paid an aggregate sum of Rs.32 crores to the Defendant. The Plaintiff further states that the aggregate sum of Rs.32 crore was paid through bank transactions carried out between 17.12.2017 and 28.11.2018.

3. The Plaintiff asserts that a sum of Rs.6,92,83,334/- became due and payable towards interest until the date of release of the movie 2.0. Upon release of the movie, after reconciliation of accounts, a sum of Rs.18,92,83,334/- was due and payable by the Defendant as on 29.11.2018. Meanwhile, a Memorandum of Understanding (the Kaala MoU) was entered into on 28.05.2018 between the Plaintiff and the Defendant for the exhibition and distribution rights for the movie ''KAALA'' featuring the actor Rajinikant. The Kaala MoU specified that the price would be mutually decided by the parties in due course. The Plaintiff states that the parties reached an understanding in line with trade practice, which entailed the exhibition of the movie ''KAALA'' in Malaysia, the deduction of expenses in relation thereto from the proceeds/collections, the raising of an invoice for 10% of the net collection towards distribution charges, and the payment of the remainder of proceeds/collections to the Defendant. The Plaintiff asserts that the gross collection from the movie ''KAALA'' in Malaysia was a sum of Rs.4,38,36,320/- and, after setting off expenses, the net collection was a sum of Rs,3,00,52,802/-. After deducting 10% distribution charges therefrom, the amount payable to the Defendant would be Rs.2,70,47,521/- but the said amount is liable to be set off against amounts due and payable to the Plaintiff towards the loan taken by the Defendant.

4. The Plaintiff further states that the Defendant released another movie titled ''CHEKKA CHIVANTHA VAANAM'' on 27.09.2018. Once again, the sale consideration was not fixed by the Defendant but was required to be computed as per the formula described above with regard to the movie ''KAALA''. The Plaintiff states that the gross collection from the movie ''CHEKKA CHIVANTHA VAANAM'' was Rs.2,69,82,150/- and that the net collection was a sum of Rs.2,46,45,392/-. After deducting 10% distribution charges of Rs.24,64,539/-, it is stated that a sum of Rs.2,21,80,853/- would be payable as per the formula. However, it is stated that the Defendant agreed to th