Justice G. Jayachandran says, he had already dealt with Lyca’s civil suit against the actor as a single judge and hence, does not want to hear the appeal

The Hindu Logo

Home
News
India
Tamil Nadu
Madras High Court judge recuses from hearing actor Vishal’s appeal against Lyca Productions
Justice G. Jayachandran says, he had already dealt with Lyca’s civil suit against the actor as a single judge and hence, does not want to hear the appeal
Updated – November 14, 2025 06:55 pm IST – CHENNAI

Mohamed Imranullah S Mohamed Imranullah S.
Google Preferred Source
Actor Vishal. File
Actor Vishal. File | Photo Credit: Sandeep Saxena

Justice G. Jayachandran of the Madras High Court, on Friday (November 14, 2025), recused from hearing an original side appeal filed by actor-producer Vishal Krishna against a single judge’s order directing him to pay ₹30.05 crore to Lyca Productions, along with interest at the rate of 30% from February 16, 2021, until the date of payment.

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

Justice Jayachandran told senior counsel A.K. Sriram, representing the appellant, that he had dealt with Lyca Production’s civil suit filed against the actor while sitting as a single judge and therefore, it would not be appropriate on his part to hear the appeal filed against the decree passed in the same suit.

Along with the appeal, the actor had also filed a petition seeking to stay all further proceedings pursuant to the decree passed by the single judge on June 5, 2025, in a 2021 civil suit filed against him by Lyca Productions.

What is the case about?
The issue relates to a loan of ₹21.29 crore, which the actor had reportedly taken from Lyca Productions in 2019 to settle his dues to film financier Anbuchezhian of Gopuram Films which, in turn, had financed his movie Marudhu in 2016, but could not recover the dues till 2019.

Lyca had filed the civil suit in 2021 for the recovery of ₹30.05 crore, along with interest at the rate of 30% on the principal amount of ₹21.29 crore from the date of filing of the suit till the date of realisation. After a full-fledged trial, Justice P.T. Asha had decreed the suit on June 5, 2025, and hence, the present appeal.

While decreeing the suit, the judge had refused to accept the argument of the actor that the levy of interest at the rate of 30% per annum by financiers in the film industry was usurious and against the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act, 2003.

She also found the actor to have made false averments on oath in the case and rejected his claim of having signed the loan agreement with Lyca Productions Private Limited in 2019 without reading its contents. She also said, the actor was not forthcoming with his bank statement.

Defending the suit filed against him, the actor denied having taken a loan of ₹21.29 crore either from Gopuram Films or Lyca Productions. He said, Marudhu was produced by Gopuram Films and and hence, the question of taking a loan would not arise at all when he had only acted in the movie for remuneration.

He also claimed to have had a financial dealing only for a sum of ₹12 crore with Gopuram Films and said that he had signed the “one-sided” agreement with Lyca in 2019 without reading all of the clauses because he had reposed total trust upon the production company and did not expect any foul play.

He also argued that the interest rate of 30% demanded by Lyca was usurious and exorbitant. On the other hand, senior counsel V. Raghavachari, representing Lyca Productions, had told the court that 30% was the standard rate of interest levied by film financiers because they give away crores of rupees in loan.

After recording their submissions, Justice Asha recalled that the High Court had in Indiabulls Financial Services Limited versus Jubilee Plots and Housing Private Limited (2010) refused to interefere with the 33% interest rate, and held that it would not be violative of the provisions of the 2003 Act.

Then, the court had categorically stated that the 2003 Act was intended to protect gullible people who borrow small amounts of loan and get slapped with usurious interest rates and not for mammoth loan transactions carried out for huge sums under the Negotiable Instruments Act of 1881.

“In the instant case, the defendant (Mr. Vishal) has signed the dotted lines agreeing to pay interest at 30% p.a… After having promised the plaintiff (Lyca) that the amount would be repaid with interest at 30% p.a., the defendant is now attempting to renege on his agreement,” Justice Asha concluded.