Dismissed¶32

J.Jeyakrishnan v. Gemini Industries and Imaging Ltd.

Madras HC6 Jul 2026A/1290/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Rejection of plaint refused — Order VII Rule 11 CPC; limitation as a mixed question of law and fact; Section 8 Arbitration and Conciliation Act — arbitration clause; application by 8th defendant (J. Jeyakrishnan, J.K. Creations) in CS No. 464 of 2017 against Gemini Industries & Imaging Ltd and theatre respondents; application dismissed; four weeks to file written statement; Madras High Court; single judge; no costs.

What did the court decide?

Application dismissed; four weeks' time granted to the applicant/8th defendant for filing the written statement; no order as to costs. ¶32

J.Jeyakrishnan Vs Gemini Industries and Imaging Ltd. — Arbitration | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

A No. 1290 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 06-07-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU

¶6

A No. 1290 of 2025 IN CS NO. 464 OF 2017

¶7

J.Jeyakrishnan Proprietor J .K. Creations, No.19, Vellaiyan Road, Kotturpuram, Chennai 600 085

¶8

..Applicant(s)

¶9

¶10

Gemini Industries & Imaging Ltd Rep By Its C.S. Ganesan Manager Legal No.28 New Bangaru Colony West K.K.Nagar, Chennai-600 078

¶11

Mr.Jayakumar Partner Ganapathi Ram Theatre Adyar Chennai -600 020

¶12

N.Devanathan Proprietor Srinivasa Enterprises Prathana Theatre , Injambakkam, Chennai

¶13

Mayajal Entertainment Ltd Rep by its Director Mayajal Complex Theatre, Kanathur, Chennai

¶14

A.G.S.Cinemas Pvt Ltd Rep by its Director, A.G.S. Complex Theatre, Villivakkam, Chennai.

¶15

__________ Page1 of 5

¶16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶17

A No. 1290 of 2025

¶18

Fame National Rep by its Director Fame National Theatre Virugambakkam Chennai

¶19

A.G.S.Cinemas Pvt Ltd Rep By Its Director A.G. S Complex Theatre, O.M.R. Chennai

¶20

Mr.R.Panneerselvam Proprietor Rohini Complex Theatre , Koyembedu, Chennai

¶21

..Respondent(s)

¶22

To reject the Plaint as being barred by limitation, as well as being barred by law under Order VII Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure.

¶23

For Applicant(s): Mr.M.Naveen Sabari For Respondent(s): Mr.S.Gopalakrishnan for Official Liquidator Mr.C.Jagadish for R2

¶24

ORDER

¶25

The instant Application has been taken out by the 8th defendant seeking to reject the plaint as being barred by the law of limitation.

¶26

It is to be noted that the issue of limitation is a mixed question of law

¶27

and facts and therefore, the Application to reject the plaint on the ground of limitation as also is barred under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act does not deserve merits. If there is any of arbitration clause, it is for the applicant to file necessary Application under section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act and Order VII Rule 11 of CPC to reject the plaint is not

¶28

Page2 of 5

¶29

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶30

A No. 1290 of 2025

¶31

maintainable on the same.

¶32

Hence, the ground raised by the Applicant to reject the plaint does not deserve any consideration. Accordingly, the Application stands dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶33