HC rejects Firoz Nadiadwala’s plea to dismiss ₹24-crore suit over film financing dispute

MUMBAI: Bombay High Court dismissed filmmaker Firoz A Nadiadwala's plea to dismiss a ₹24-crore suit, affirming he was aware of the proceedings.

MUMBAI: The Bombay High Court on Monday rejected a plea by filmmaker Firoz A Nadiadwala seeking dismissal of a ₹24-crore commercial suit filed against him on grounds that he was never formally served a writ of summons.

HC rejects Firoz Nadiadwala’s plea to dismiss ₹24-crore suit over film financing dispute

Justice Abhay Ahuja, who heard the matter, observed that since Nadiadwala had already appointed lawyers and was represented by senior counsel during earlier proceedings, formal service of summons was not required under the law.

The case stems from a financing agreement dated July 16, 2015, between Nadiadwala and businessman Anil Dhanraj Jethani, who had agreed to fund a film production. Jethani later filed a suit on August 19, 2015, to recover ₹24 crore, alleging non-payment of dues.

On September 1, 2015, the high court passed a consent order permitting Jethani to withdraw ₹12.5 crore deposited by another defendant. The remaining amount was to be paid by Nadiadwala before the release of his upcoming film Welcome to the Jungle, which was initially scheduled for December 28, 2024, but has since been delayed.

Following the enactment of the Commercial Courts Act in October 2015, the suit was reclassified as a commercial case. Nadiadwala later moved an application arguing that he had never been served a summons, and therefore, all subsequent orders—including the consent order—were invalid and contrary to the Civil Procedure Code.

His counsel further pointed out that Jethani had not taken any steps to issue or serve a writ of summons for over seven years and contended that the financing agreement remained unsigned by one party, raising questions about its enforceability.

Countering the claim, Jethani’s senior counsel argued that once a defendant enters an appearance during interlocutory proceedings or files a vakalatnama, formal service of summons is no longer necessary. He accused Nadiadwala of acting in bad faith and attempting to evade a binding commitment made to the court.

The court noted that Nadiadwala had received copies of the plaint and exhibits on August 20, 2015, and that his legal team had participated in hearings on August 24 and 28 that year. It held that his participation established his awareness of the proceedings and dismissed his application accordingly.