Bombay High Court Dismisses Firoz Nadiadwala’s Plea to Dismiss Rs 24 Crore Claim

Why the “No-Summons” Argument Failed

Justice Abhay Ahuja ruled that if a defendant appoints legal counsel and actively engages in proceedings, the technicality of non-service of summons cannot invalidate the case. Court records indicate that Nadiadwala had been represented by a senior advocate in earlier hearings, demonstrating his clear awareness of the litigation.

The Dispute in a Nutshell

• Financing Agreement: On July 16, 2015, businessman Anil Dhanraj Jethani agreed to finance a film by Nadiadwala.
• Suit Filed: Jethani filed a lawsuit on August 19, 2015, seeking recovery of Rs 24 crores for unpaid dues.
• Consent Order: A consent order dated September 1, 2015, permitted Jethani to withdraw Rs 12.5 crores deposited by another defendant, with the balance to be paid by Nadiadwala prior to the release of his film Welcome to the Jungle, originally scheduled for December 28, 2024, but now delayed.
• Commercial Courts Act: Following the Act’s implementation in October 2015, the matter was re-registered as a commercial suit.

Nadiadwala’s Objections

The producer later sought to dismiss the suit, arguing that:

1. No writ of summons had been served, rendering subsequent orders, including the 2015 consent order, void under the Civil Procedure Code (CPC).
2. No action had been taken for over seven years to issue fresh summons.
3. The financing agreement lacked a signature from one party, raising questions about its enforceability.

Court’s Reasoning

Justice Ahuja dismissed these objections, stating that the CPC allows for the waiver of formal service if the defendant has already appeared through counsel. The judge noted that Nadiadwala’s earlier participation indicated his awareness of the proceedings, fulfilling the law’s purpose of ensuring that the defendant is aware of the case against him.