Madras High Court Directs Producers Of Kochadaiyaan Movie To Pay ₹2.52 Crore Towards Unpaid Debt

Though Justice Sunder Mohan observed that neither the production house nor the complainant had proved their case under the Negotiable Instruments Act, the court highlighted that the purpose of the law was to compensate the complainant. The court also noted that the alleged cheque was issued in 2014 and the court had to adopt a course to secure ends of justice.

“From the discussion on facts, this Court is of the view that neither the respondent nor the petitioners/accused have established their respective cases. It is no doubt true that the standard of proof for the respondent and the petitioners/accused are different. In such circumstances, normally this Court would have held that the petitioners/accused are not guilty of the offence. However, the alleged cheque was issued in the year 2014 and in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is inclined to adopt a course to secure the ends of justice. In the facts and circumstances, the petitioners cannot be sentenced to imprisonment,” the court noted.

The court was hearing a criminal revision petition filed by Mediaone challenging an order of Additional City Civil Court, confirming the conviction imposed by the Metropolitan Magistrate Fast Track Court in Egmore. By the judgments, the courts had sentenced Mediaone to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and pay a compensation of Rs. 7.7 Crore.

The case against the company was that it had approached the complainant, Ad Bureau Advertising Pvt Ltd for monetary assistance of Rs. 20 Crore for the post production of Kochadaiyaan movie. The complainant and Mediaone entered into a Memorandum of Understanding following which Rs. 10 crore was sent to the company. The complainant argued that the production company had guaranteed the due repayment before the release of the movie and 20% of sale commission in case the movie is sold to third parties.

The complainant alleged that towards part payment, the production company issued a cheque for Rs 5 crore and when the cheque was presented for payment, it was returned with a memo “stop payment by the drawer”. The complainant further alleged that though a statutory notice was issued, the production company did not pay the amount and thus were liable under Section 138 of the Act.

The production company argued that the MoU was never acted upon and the complainant had not paid Rs 20 crore as promised by them but had paid only Rs 10 Cro. It was further submitted that the production company had already paid more than Rs 12.75 crore towards discharge of their liability and as such were not liable to pay any more amount.

The court noted that the complainant had taken differing stands in the statutory notice and the complaint as to the debt for which the cheque was issued. The court also noted that the complainant had not mentioned the exact amount of sales commission to which they were entitled to.

At the same time, the court also noted that the petitioner had not produced any evidence to show that they had paid Rs. 12.75 crore. The court noted that the petitioners had borrowed Rs. 10 crore, out of which Rs 8.74 crore was repaid by the petitioner.

Thus, to meet the ends of justice, the court directed the production house to pay Rs. 2.52 Crore, which was twice the due amount. The court also ordered that if the amount was not paid, the Director of the company would suffer six months simple imprisonment.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. T. Saikrishnan

Counsel for Respondents: Mrs. Abirchand Madhubala Nahar for Mr. Abirchand Nahar Party-in-Person

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 59

Case Title: M/s. Mediaone Global Entertainment Ltd. v M/s. Ad Bureau Advertising Pvt Ltd

Case No: CRL RC No. 1636 of 2023