Bombay High Court Allows Summary Suit for Recovery of $300,000 in Commercial Contract Dispute. Zee Entertainment's claim for payment under a content licensing agreement upheld against Triller Inc for failure to make payment despite repeated demands.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY In Favour of Prosecution
  • 1
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The plaintiff, Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited, a public listed company, filed a summary suit in the Commercial Division of the Bombay High Court against Triller Inc, a company incorporated in the United States. The suit sought recovery of $300,000 (equivalent to Rs. 2,44,26,480) along with interest at 18% per annum. The claim arose from a content licensing agreement where the plaintiff provided content to the defendant, but the defendant failed to make the payment despite repeated demands. The court considered the pleadings and arguments, noting that the defendant did not appear or file a defence. The court held that the plaintiff had made out a clear case for recovery and that there was no triable issue. Consequently, the court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff for the principal amount with interest at 18% per annum from the date of the suit until realization.

Headnote

A) Commercial Law - Summary Suit - Recovery of Money - Order XXXVII of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Plaintiff sought recovery of $300,000 for content licensing fees - Defendant failed to pay despite demands - Court held that the suit was maintainable and plaintiff entitled to decree - Held that the defendant had no valid defence (Paras 1-11).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the sum of $300,000 along with interest at 18% per annum from the defendant under a content licensing agreement.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff for the sum of $300,000 (equivalent to Rs. 2,44,26,480) with interest at 18% per annum from the date of the suit until realization.

Law Points

  • Summary suit
  • recovery of money
  • commercial contract
  • interest rate
  • foreign currency conversion
  • Order XXXVII CPC
  • Section 34 CPC
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2023 LawText (BOM) (09) 74

Interim Application (L) No. 2720 of 2023 with Commercial Summary Suit (L) No. 2658 of 2023 with Summons for Judgment (L) No. 17289 of 2023

2023-09-07

Kamal Khata, J.

Mr. Priyank Kapadia a/w. Mr. Kunal Parekh, Ms. Nirali Atha i/b. Dua Associates, for the Plaintiff. Mr. Malhar Zatakia a/w. Mr. Arpit Solanki, Mr. Siddharth Bafna i/b. Integrum Legal, for the Defendant.

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Commercial summary suit for recovery of money

Remedy Sought

Recovery of $300,000 equivalent to Rs. 2,44,26,480 with interest at 18% per annum

Filing Reason

Defendant failed to pay for content licensing services provided by plaintiff

Issues

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the sum of $300,000 along with interest at 18% per annum from the defendant.

Submissions/Arguments

Plaintiff argued that the defendant failed to pay the agreed amount despite repeated demands. Defendant did not appear or file a defence.

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff made out a clear case for recovery under Order XXXVII CPC as the defendant failed to pay the agreed amount and did not raise any triable issue.

Judgment Excerpts

This summary suit is instituted in this Court’s Commercial Division for the recovery of a sum of $300,000/- equivalent to Rs.2,44,26,480/- along with interest thereon at the rate of 18%

Acts & Sections

  • Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order XXXVII
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Karnataka Acquits Accused in Rape Case Due to Delay in FIR and Lack of Medical Evidence. Conviction under Section 376 IPC set aside as prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Quashes Reassessment Notice Under Section 148 of Income-tax Act, 1961 for Lack of Fresh Material. Reopening Based on Mere Change of Opinion on Capital Gains Computation is Invalid.