India News | HC Sets Aside Rs 5L Costs Imposed on INOX Leisure for Filing Suit Against PVR Ltd
Get latest articles and stories on India at LatestLY. The Delhi High Court has set aside a cost of Rs five lakh which was imposed on multiplex operator INOX Leisure Ltd for filing a suit against PVR Ltd seeking to restrain it from interfering in its existing and future land contracts.
New Delhi, Jun 26 (PTI) The Delhi High Court has set aside a cost of Rs five lakh which was imposed on multiplex operator INOX Leisure Ltd for filing a suit against PVR Ltd seeking to restrain it from interfering in its existing and future land contracts.
A bench of Justices Manmohan and Sanjeev Narula also set aside a single judge's finding of ‘judicial adventurism' against INOX Leisure.
“Accordingly, the cost of rupees five lakh imposed by the single judge as well as the finding of ‘judicial adventurism' against the appellant-plaintiff (INOX) are set aside,” the bench said, in its June 24 judgement.
“The single judge has not dismissed the present suit or rejected the plaint on the ground of suppression of material facts and/or on the ground that the appellant-plaintiff had filed parallel or multiple proceedings on the same cause of action. Consequently, neither the finding of ‘judicial adventurism' nor the imposition of costs is warranted in the present case,” it said.
Also Read | Earthquake in Meghalaya: 3.3 Magnitude Tremors Hit 79 Km West of Tura, Says National Center for Seismology.
On May 18, the single judge had dismissed the suit filed by INOX Leisure saying it has no cause of action for the relief claimed against PVR and such claims are barred by law. It had imposed a cost of Rs five lakh on INOX leisure for indulging in “judicial adventurism” by filing the suit.
In the appeal, initially INOX Leisure had challenged dismissal of the suit at the pre-trial stage.
During the hearing, its counsel said he has instructions not to press the present appeal on merits. He, however, stated that the single judge in the order had erroneously imposed the cost of Rs five lakh on it, even when the concept of tortious inducement or interference of binding agreements is known to constitute a cause of action to file a suit for damages or injunction.
The single judge, in its judgement, had noted the case of INOX was that it had binding contracts with the developer/owner of the properties at Amritsar and Juhu in Mumbai and the contracts were breached/broken or were threatened to be breached/broken by the developer/owner of the properties, at the instance of PVR.
The plaintiff had sought to restrain the defendant from doing so and also from doing this with regard to other properties where INOX has existing contracts or may have in future.
PVR had opposed the suit saying INOX filed the plaint seeking a blanket order across India without even producing any agreements with respect to specific property and it was an attempt to stifle the defendant's choice as its competitor.
The high court was of the opinion that even if it is believed that INOX is having existing binding contracts and even if PVR is indeed interfering therein or causing breach thereof, the plaintiff is not entitled to restrain the defendant.
(The above story is verified and authored by Press Trust of India (PTI) staff. PTI, India’s premier news agency, employs more than 400 journalists and 500 stringers to cover almost every district and small town in India.. The views appearing in the above post do not reflect the opinions of LatestLY)