Introduction
The Bombay High Court recently adjudicated a Summons for Judgment arising out of a suit for the recovery of money arising out of a copyright dispute between Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited and Triller Inc., ruling in favour of the Plaintiff, Zee Entertainment. The judgment addresses pivotal issues such as non-payment of licensing fees and the applicability of Section 12-A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

Facts of the Case
Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited, the Plaintiff, is a media and entertainment conglomerate holding extensive copyrights in sound recordings and audio-visuals. Triller Inc., the Defendant, is a video-sharing social networking service that employs artificial intelligence technology. The Plaintiff had granted a limited non-exclusive license to the Defendant for a year, subsequently extended for another year. As per the agreement, the Defendant was to pay US $6,00,000 in four equal quarterly instalments. However, the Defendant defaulted on the third and fourth instalments, prompting the Plaintiff to file a summary Suit in the Bombay High Court's commercial division. Plaintiff had not exhausted the remedy of pre-institution Mediation u/s 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and took out an Interim Application for security and attachment before Judgment.

Plaintiff's Arguments
The Plaintiff argued that despite multiple reminders and notices, the Defendant failed to make the due payments. They sought the recovery of US $3,00,000 along with 18% per annum interest and interim reliefs against the Defendant's properties in India. The Plaintiff's counsel highlighted that the Defendant is a habitual defaulter with several pending litigations in the USA. To substantiate the urgency for interim reliefs, the counsel cited a report from the "Los Angeles Times" dated 4th October 2022. The Plaintiff relied on judgments such as IDBI Trusteeship Services Limited Vs Hubtown Limited (1 (2017) 1 SCC 568), Antara Housing LLP vs M/s Primeland Constructions (High Court Judgment dated 3rd October 2022 in SJ (L) No. 15542 of 2022 with IA (L) No. 10318 of 2022 in Comm Sum Suit No. 20 of 2022), among others, to support their contentions.

Defendants' Arguments
The Defendant contended that the Suit was premature and barred by Section 12-A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, which mandates pre-suit mediation. The Defendant's counsel cited judgments of the Patil Automation Private Limited versus Rakheja Engineers Private Limited (2022 10 SCC 1) and Dilip Kumar Rungta versus KLG Tradefin Pvt. Ltd (2023 SCC OnLine Cal 764) to argue that the Plaintiff needed to exhaust remedies under Section 12-A before proceeding.

Conclusion of the Court

The Court dismissed the Defendant's arguments regarding the suit being premature and ruled in favour of the Plaintiff. The Court concluded as follows:-

1. The Defendant had not paid the outstanding dues for more than six months, i.e., till the hearing of the Suit, and had not shown any intention or capacity to pay the Plaintiff.
2. The Defendant had not rebutted the Plaintiff's claim of interest on the delayed payments, which was clearly mentioned in the invoices and the notices.
3. The Defendant had not raised any dispute or complaint regarding the licensed works or the agreement with the Plaintiff.
4. The Plaintiff had made several attempts to settle the matter with the Defendant, but the Defendant had either made unacceptable offers or failed to honour its commitments.
5. The Plaintiff had a genuine apprehension that the Defendant might alienate its assets and properties in India to avoid its obligations, as it was a foreign company with several litigations pending against it in the USA.
6. The Defendant had no plausible or probable defence and had admitted its liability.
7. There was a clear case for urgent interim relief, given the Defendant's history as a habitual defaulter.
8. The Suit was neither premature nor barred by Section 12-A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, as there was no possibility of settlement between the parties. The Court further noted that the Defendant's failure to pay, despite the Plaintiff's attempts at settlement, indicated an intent to delay or defeat the Plaintiff's claim. Therefore, the Plaintiff was entitled to judgment forthwith¹.

By - Chaitanyaa Bhandarkar