High Court (India)

June 29, 2020

Delhi HC sets aside Rs. 5 Lakh cost slapped on INOX for engaging in ‘judicial adventurism’


[ by Legal Era News Network ]

Delhi-High-Court

The Delhi High Court on June 26, set aside the Rs. 5 lakh cost imposed on multiplex giant INOX Leisure Ltd.

A division bench of the High Court presided over by Justices Manmohan and Sanjeev Narula set aside the cost imposed on the multiplex major for filing a suit against PVR Ltd seeking to restrain it from interfering in its existing and future land contracts.

“The cost of Rs. 5 lakh imposed by the learned Single Judge as well as the finding of ‘judicial adventurism’ against the appellant-plaintiff are set aside,” the court said.

The observation came while the court was hearing an appeal filed by INOX challenging the judgment passed by a single judge whereby the suit of the multiplex major was dismissed at the pre-trial stage.

The bench stated that though the plea of tortuous inducement/interference of binding agreement is not made out in the present suit, yet the said concept is well-known in law to constitute a cause of action to file a suit for damages/injunctions.

On May 18, a single judge bench of the high court had imposed a cost of Rs. 5 lakh on INOX for indulging in “judicial adventurism” by filing a suit against PVR Ltd seeking to restrain it from interfering in its existing and future land contracts. In its order, the single judge bench of the High Court presided over by Justice Rajiv Sahai Endlaw had dismissed the suit, saying it has no cause of action for the relief claimed against PVR and such claims are barred by law.

“Axiomatically the suit is dismissed. The plaintiff (INOX) having indulged in judicial adventurism, is also burdened with costs of Rs. 5 lakhs, payable to the defendant (PVR) within 90 days hereof,” the judge said.

The High Court, in its 35-page judgement, had noted that the case of INOX is that it had binding contracts with the developer/owner of the properties in Amritsar and Juhu in Mumbai and the contracts were breached/broken or are threatened to be breached/broken by the developer/owner of the properties, at the instance of PVR.



Related Post

latest News

  • SFIO Investigation Reveals That Wife Of Former IL&FS Top Boss Had Private Business Deal With Defaulter Businessman

    The wife of former IL&FS head Ravi Parthasarathy probably had business dealings with C Sivasankaran in a private capacity, according to a Serious Frau...

    Read More
  • The Portuguese Civil Code to govern the rights of succession and inheritance with respect of properties of a Goan situated outside Goa, anywhere in India: SC

    The question that arose for consideration before the Supreme Court Bench of Justices Deepak Gupta and Aniruddha Bose was whether succession to the pro...

    Read More
  • NDTV To Challenge SEBI Ban Barring It From Accessing Capital Markets, Calls Order ‘Highly Unusual’ And ‘Perverse Direction’

    New Delhi Television Ltd’s (NDTV) promoters Prannoy Roy and his wife Radhika Roy plan to challenge the recent Securities & Exchange Board of India (...

    Read More