Madras High Court judge recuses from hearing actor Vishal’s appeal against Lyca Productions

Justice G. Jayachandran of the Madras High Court on Friday, November 14, 2025, refused to hear the original ancillary plea filed by actor-producer Vishal Krishna against a single judge’s order directing Lyca Productions to pay Rs 30.05 crore along with interest at 30% from February 16, 2021, till the date of payment.

The Division Bench comprising Justices Jayachandran and Mummineni Sudheer Kumar directed the Supreme Court Registry to list the appeal before the alternative Division Bench of Justices N. Sathish Kumar and M. Jothiraman, as per standing directions issued by Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava.

Justice Jayachandran told senior advocate AK Sriram, representing the appellant, that he was handling the civil suit filed by Lyca Production against the actor while sitting as a single judge and therefore it would not be appropriate for him to hear the appeal against the order passed in the same case.

Apart from the appeal, the actor had also filed a petition seeking stay of all further proceedings as per the order given by the single judge on June 5, 2025, in a civil case filed against him by Lyca Productions in 2021.

What is the case about?

The issue relates to the loan of ₹21.29 crore that the actor took from Lyca Productions in 2019 to repay his debt to film financier Anbuchezhian from Gopuram Films, which financed his film. marudhu He did not get his dues back in 2016 but until 2019.

Lyca had filed a suit for recovery of ₹ 30.05 crore in 2021 and interest was charged at the rate of 30% on the principal amount of ₹ 21.29 crore from the date of filing of the suit to the date of realization. After a full-fledged hearing, Justice PT Asha had decided the case and hence the present appeal on June 5, 2025.

While deciding the case, the judge had refused to accept the actor’s contention that the interest rate of 30% per annum charged by financiers in the film industry was usury and contrary to the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act, 2003.

It also found that the actor made false statements in the case and rejected the claim that he signed the loan agreement with Lyca Productions Private Limited in 2019 without reading its contents. He also said that it was not about the actor’s bank statement.

Defending the case against him, the actor denied taking a loan of ₹21.29 crore from Gopuram Films or Lyca Productions. He said: marudhu It was produced by Gopuram Films and hence the issue of getting credit would not have arisen at all when he acted in the film only for remuneration.

He also claimed that he had made a financial deal with Gopuram Films for only ₹12 crore and said that he signed the “unilateral” agreement with Lyca in 2019 without reading all the clauses as he had full trust in the production company and did not expect any foul play.

He also argued that the 30% interest rate demanded by Lyca was exorbitant and exorbitant. On the other hand, senior advocate V. Raghavachari, representing Lyca Productions, had told the court that the standard interest rate that film financiers get for giving billions of rupees as loans is 30%.

After recording her submissions, Justice Asha said that the Supreme Court Indiabulls Financial Services Limited v Jubilee Plots and Housing Private Limited (2010) It refused to interfere with the 33% interest rate and held that this would not contravene the provisions of the 2003 Act.

The court had then categorically stated that the 2003 Act was intended to protect gullible people who took loans of small amounts and were exposed to high interest rates and not for huge loan transactions carried out for large amounts under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Justice Asha concluded: “In the present case, the defendant (Mr. Vishal) signed on the dotted lines agreeing to pay interest at 30% per annum. After promising the plaintiff (Lyca) that the amount would be repaid with interest at 30% per annum, the defendant is now trying to renege on the agreement.” Judge Asha concluded.