Madras High Court
Olympia Movies vs B. Pradeep on 11 June, 2025
Author: Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy
Bench: Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy
A No. 2590 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 11-06-2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY
A No. 2590 of 2025
IN C.S(COMM DIV) NO. 123 OF 2025
Olympia Movies,
Door No 18, Flat No E2,
Vijayaragava Road, T Nagar,
Chennai 600 017.
..Applicant/Defendant
Vs
B. Pradeep,
S/o.Bhagchand, 66/70,
Palani Andavar Koil Street,
Vadapalani, Chennai 600 026.
..Respondent/Plaintiff
Prayer: Application is filed under Order XIV Rule 8 of O.S.Rules read with
Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C, to reject the plaint in C.S.(Comm. Div.) No.123 of
2025.
For Applicant : M/S.Vijayan Subramanian
For Respondent: M/s.Arun C.Mohan
ORDER
By this application, the defendant seeks rejection of the plaint, both on
the ground that the plaint does not disclose a cause of action and on the ground
that the suit is barred by law.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/06/2025 08:53:14 pm )
2. Learned counsel for the applicant/defendant referred to Clause-7 of
film assignment agreement dated 12.09.2022 between the plaintiff and
defendant and submitted that the said clause provides for the exclusive
jurisdiction of courts in Mumbai in respect of disputes between the parties. By
further stating that the plaintiff has challenged the validity of this clause merely
to justify the circumvention thereof, he contends that the plaint is liable to be
rejected under Order VII Rule 11 (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
(CPC).
3. By also referring to the termination clause in the above mentioned
assignment agreement, learned counsel submits that the remedies of the plaintiff
are specified therein and that the remedies prayed for in the suit and
interlocutory application do not fall within the scope of the agreement.
Therefore, he contends that the plaint does not disclose a cause of action.
4. In response, learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that the entire
cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of this Court and that, therefore,
parties cannot confer jurisdiction on a court which otherwise does not possess
jurisdiction. He relies upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in A.B.C.
Laminart Pvt. Ltd., and another V. A.P. Agencies, Salem (1989) 2 SCC 163 in
support of this proposition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/06/2025 08:53:14 pm )
5. Order VII Rule 11, CPC reads, in relevant part, as under:
''11. Rejection of Plaint – The plaint shall be rejected in the following
cases-
(a) where it does not disclose a cause of action;
(d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint
to be barred by any law.''
6. In order to succeed under clause (a) of Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, the
defendant should establish that the plaint does not disclose a cause of action.
The suit is for recovery of an alleged debt of Rs.1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One
crore only), alleged damages of Rs.1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One crore only), and
to declare clause-7 of the film assignment agreement dated 12.09.2022 as null
and void.
7. The plaintiff has pleaded as under in paragraph Nos.9,12 and 14 of the
plaint:
''9. The Plaintiff states that, in view of the constant delay
and disinterest shown by the Defendant in the project, the Plaintiff
tried contacting the Defendant on several junctures requesting
him to return the consideration amount paid by the Plaintiff upon
the execution of the agreement along with the interest.
Additionally, a notice dated 08.03.2024 ("Notice") was addressed
to the Defendant terminating the agreement as per Clause 5.1 of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/06/2025 08:53:14 pm )
the agreement and consequently calling upon the Defendant to
refund the sum of Rs. 1,00,00000/- (Rupees One crore only) paid
as consideration under the Assignment Deed along with an
interest of 30% per annum from the date of payment till the date
of receipt of the same. However, the Defendant has failed to
acknowledge or reply to the notice and has not complied with the
Plaintiff's request. The Plaintiff states that the Defendant has
wantonly avoided the messages, calls and notices from the
Plaintiff to evade repaying the amount.
....
12. The Plaintiff states that he had engaged with various
technicians and made commitments based on the agreement with
the Defendant. The Defendant's failure to perform his obligations
had caused incalculable loss. Therefore, the Plaintiff is entitled to
seek damages against the Defendant and the Plaintiff values the
same at Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore only) for the purpose
of the suit.
....
14. The plaintiff submits that as per clause 7 of the
Agreement, the parties agreed to subject themselves to the
exclusive jurisdiction of Mumbai Courts only. However, it is
submitted that the entire cause of action arises in Chennai with
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/06/2025 08:53:14 pm )
the Agreement being signed in Chennai, the plaintiff residing and
carrying on business in Vadalapani, Chennai within the
jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court, the defendant residing and
carrying on business at Kodambakkam, Chennai within the
jurisdiction of this Hon'ble court; the subject matter of the
Agreement i.e. the assigned film REKLA being a Tamil film was
supposed to be released in Chennai and the financial transactions
in furtherance to the agreement were in Chennai. In light of the
same, it is submitted that, the entire cause of action for the
present suit arises in Chennai and in view of the same clause 7 of
the Agreement subjecting the parties to the exclusive jurisdiction
of Mumbai Courts is not binding and therefore, ought to be
declared null and void.''
8. On perusal of the above mentioned paragraphs, it cannot be concluded
that the plaint does not disclose a cause of action. At this juncture, it is neither
necessary nor germane to examine whether the plaintiff would be in a position
to establish all elements of the cause of action and succeed on the suit claim.
Therefore, the objection on the basis of clause (a) of Order VII Rule 11, CPC is
rejected.
9. The objection on the basis of clause (d) of Order VII Rule 11, CPC is
made by relying on clause-7 of the assignment agreement, which records that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/06/2025 08:53:14 pm )
courts in Mumbai would exercise exclusive jurisdiction.
10. A clause in a private contract dealing with jurisdiction does not
qualify as law. Therefore, the plaint cannot be rejected on the basis of an
exclusive jurisdiction clause in a contract.
11. For the reasons above stated, this application is dismissed without any
order as to costs.
11-06-2025
(½)
rli
Index:Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Internet:Yes
Neutral Citation:Yes/No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/06/2025 08:53:14 pm )
SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY J.
rli
in C.S(COMM DIV)
NO. 123 OF 2025
11.06.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/06/2025 08:53:14 pm )
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/06/2025 08:53:14 pm )
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/06/2025 08:53:14 pm )
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/06/2025 08:53:14 pm )
