licensee/defendant. The plaintiff contends that clause 4.6 provides for the adjustment of proceeds first towards minimum guarantee payment and next towards specified expenses. Upon adjustment towards the aforesaid items of expenditure, it is contended that the overflow amount was required to be apportioned between the plaintiff and the defendant on 50:50 basis. For such purpose, the plaintiff points out that the defendant was required to submit accounts within three weeks from the date of general theatrical release of the movie in the licensed territory. In terms thereof, it is stated that the income and expenditure statement was provided by the defendant to the plaintiff, albeit belatedly. As per such income and expenditure statement, the plaintiff contends that a sum of Rs.3,54,07,357/- was realized. After setting off permissible expenses, it is stated that a sum of Rs.2,77,27,435/- was available for apportionment between the plaintiff and the defendant. The plaintiff also points out that the applicable GST was payable by the defendant both in respect of the minimum guarantee payment and the apportioned amount. On such basis, the plaintiff submits that a sum of Rs.1,06,13,717.32 was payable by the defendant to the plaintiff. After giving credit to a sum of Rs.25 lakhs which was paid by the defendant to the plaintiff, the plaintiff submits that a sum of Rs.81,13,717/- was the net
