The court ruled that the first defendant was not obligated to invest the full amount under the Film Investment Agreement, and both parties failed to meet their burden of proof.

JUDGMENT :

(ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.)

This suit is one in which both parties to the dispute blame each other of having committed breach of contract.

2. The plaintiff and the first defendant had entered into a Film Investment Agreement dated 06.10.2017, under which certain sums of money were to be invested by the first defendant for the production of the Tamil film by name, "THE SUPER DELUXE" by the plaintiff. The plaintiff claims that a total sum of Rs.4,00,00,000/- ought to have been invested by the first defendant as per the Film Investment Agreement dated 06.10.2017, but the first defendant invested only Rs.2,35,00,000/- due to which the plaintiff claims that he suffered losses.

3. The plaintiff also claims that being an investment agreement, the first defendant is only entitled for investment returns as per the terms and conditions of the Film Investment Agreement dated 06.10.2017. According to the plaintiff, whatever income was received by the plaintiff through sale of Tamil Nadu Theatrical Rights for the film "THE SUPER DELUXE", the plaintiff had given the returns to the first defendant as per the terms and conditions of the Film Investment Agreement dated 06.10.2017.

4. According to the plaintiff, no moneys are due and payable by the plaintiff to the first defendant, but, instead, it is only the first defendant, who has failed to invest the balance sum of Rs.1,65,00,000/- with the plaintiff as per the terms and conditions of the Film Investment Agreement dated 06.10.2017, who is liable to pay the said sum together with interest as claimed in the plaint. The plaintiff, therefore, has made a suit claim of Rs.3,15,51,647/-, which includes Rs.3,10,85,367/- from the defendant jointly and severally together with interest at the rate of 18% per annum, amounting to Rs.4,66,680/- till the date of filing of the suit.

5. On the other hand, the first defendant has made a counter claim for a sum of Rs.1,00,00,000/- together with interest against the plaintiff, by claiming that since as per the terms of the Film Investment Agreement dated 06.10.2017, the first defendant is entitled to 40% of the amounts mentioned in the agreement entered into between the plaintiff and "Y Not X Marketing and Distribution LLP", which discloses Rs.10,00,00,000/-, which the plaintiff claims to have entered into, the defendants are entitled to 40% of the said amount as per the terms and conditions of the Film Investment Agreement dated 06.10.2017, which works out to Rs.4,00,00,000/-, out of which the plaintiff has repaid only Rs.3,00,00,000/-. Since there remains a balance of Rs.1,00,00,000/-, which according to the first defendant is the sum due and payable to them, they have made a counter claim against the plaintiff for a sum of Rs.1,00,00,000/- together with interest in the suit.

6. Based on the pleadings of the respective parties, the following issues were framed by this Court on 12.03.2020:

"a) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the sum of Rs.3,15,51,647/- with interest as claimed in the suit?

b) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the interest for the suit claim?

c) Whether the defendant is entitled to a sum of Rs.1,00,00,000/-with interest at the rate of 24% p.a. from the date of counter claim till date of realization?

d) To what other reliefs, are the parties entitled to?"

7. The plaintiff has let in oral and documentary evidence. But the defendants have let in oral evidence alone as no documents were marked as exhibits on their side.

8. The sole proprietor of the plaintiff, one Mr.Thiagarajan Kumararaja was examined as a witness (PW1). He filed proof affidavit on behalf of the plaintiff and through him, the following documents were marked as exhibits on the side of the plaintiff: