SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Mad) 4594

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.T. ASHA, J.
Lyca Productions Private Limited - Appellant 
Versus 
Vishal Krishna Reddy - Respondent 
C.S.No. 59 of 2021
Decided on : 05-06-2025


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. V.Raghavachari Senior Counsel For M/s. Hema Srinivasan
For the Respondent: Mr. A.K.Sriram Senior Counsel For Mr. M.Arun.

The court reinforced that loan agreements are enforceable, and defendants cannot evade repayment obligations by citing external factors like the pandemic, especially when contract terms explicitly detail repayments.

Headnote:(A) Loan Agreement - Recovery of amount - Suit filed for recovery of Rs.30,05,68,137/- together with interest at 30% p.a. on the principal amount of Rs.21,29,00,000/- - Plaintiff had taken over the loan from original lender and became entitled to recover certain amounts - Failure of the defendant to repay the loan despite reminders and claims - COVID-19 pandemic did not exempt defendant from obligations under contract - The court emphasized the enforceability of the loan agreement and the validity of the interest rate charged. (Paras 1, 2, 5, 10, 72-74)

(B) Breach of Contract - Defendant breached obligations under loan agreement and failed to notify inability to repay - Plaintiff fulfilled obligations of loan repayment before suit - Defendant incorrectly relied on force majeure clause, failed to respond adequately to plaintiff's reminders. (Paras 1, 44-46)

Facts of the case:
The suit was initiated by a production company for recovery of a substantial loan amount advanced to the defendant concerning film production. The defendant denied taking the loan and alleged that the agreement was one-sided, arguing for a waive due to pandemic impacts.

Findings of Court:
The court found in favor of the plaintiff, confirming the repayment of the original loan to the lender and recognizing enforceable terms in the agreement, including the interest rate.

Issues: Main issues included whether the defendant breached the loan agreement, the enforceability of its terms, and the legitimacy of claimed interest.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the defendant had indeed breached the loan agreement, and despite arguments of one-sidedness and force majeure due to COVID-19, they could not be exempted from repayment obligations.

Result: The suit was decreed in favor of the plaintiff with costs and interest as claimed.

Table of Content
1. basis for jurisdiction and parties involved (Para 1 , 2)
2. loan agreement specifics between plaintiff and defendant (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 10)
3. impact of non-payment on plaintiff's finances (Para 6 , 8 , 12)
4. defendant's obligations regarding repayment communication (Para 7 , 11)
5. plaintiff's claim for recovery of loan and interest. (Para 9)
6. defendant's denial of liability and counterarguments (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18)
7. defendant's denial of liability and claims of misleading facts. (Para 19 , 25)
8. plaintiff's rejoinder and evidence of payments made (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24)
9. court's framed issues for determination (Para 26 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34)
10. court's examination of evidence and legal arguments. (Para 27 , 28 , 49)
11. arguments regarding breach of agreement and payments (Para 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41)
12. challenges to interest rate validity (Para 42 , 43 , 44 , 45)
13. court's observations on procedural issues (Para 46 , 47 , 48 , 51)
14. defendant's arguments regarding loan origins and validity (Para 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58)
15. court's analysis and decision on the issues presented (Para 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76 , 77 , 78)
16. final ruling and order of the court (Para 79)

JUDGMENT :

P.T. ASHA, J.

The above suit is filed for a recovery of a sum of Rs.30,05,68,137/- together with interest at 30 % p.a on the principal sum of Rs.21,29,00,000/- together with costs.

Plaintiff's case:

2. The plaintiff is a leading production house in South Indian Film Industry and is engaged in production, distribution and marketing of several high budget movies like 2.0, Dharbar, Indian 2 to name a few. The defendant is a sole proprietary concern which had been established in the year 2013 by Mr.Vishal Krishna Reddy an actor in the Tamil Film Industry. The defendant is also engaged in production and distribution of cinematic works.

3. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant had produced the movie named "Marudhu" in the year 2016 and for financing the same he had entered into a loan arrangement with M/s.Gopuram Films represented by Mr. Anbu Chezhian. A sum of Rs.21.29 Crores was borrowed by the defendant from the said M/s.Gopuram Films. However, the defendant was unable to service the said loan. Therefore, he had requested the help from the plaintiff to settle this outstanding to M/s.Gopuram Films and promising to repay the same to the plaintiff with interest. Trusting the words of the defendant, the plaintiff had taken over the loan of Rs.21.29 Crores being the principal with interest at 30% per annum.

4. The plaintiff and the defendant had thereafter reduced into writing their terms of agreement under a loan agreement dated 21.09.2019. The defendant had promised to repay Rs.7 Crores one week prior to the release of the film tentatively titled as Thupparivalan II on or before 31.03.2020. It was also agreed that in case film was not released then the loan amount would be cleared by 31.12.2020.

5. The plaintiff would further submit that the first instalment was due on or before 24.03.2020 ie., a week prior to the expected release of the movie Thupparivalan II as the same was slated for release on 31.03.2020. The payment was not made and the plaintiff came to learn that the shooting of the film could not be completed owing to certain financial issue of the defendant. Therefore, the movie could not be released on 31.03.2020. Therefore, as per the terms of the agreement the loan amount was repayable on or before 31.12.2020.

6. In the meantime, the plaintiff's business was greatly affected on account of Covid 19 situation owing to which the production of several high budget movies had come to stand still and the employees who were dependent on the plaintiff for their salaries had to be still paid. In this background the non payment of the dues by the defendant was also causing great impact on the plaintiff's finances.

7. The plaintiff

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top