Delhi High Court Sets Aside Costs In the Case Of INOX And PVR

Must Read

Privy Council Clarifies Approach To Winding up in “Deadlock” Cases in the Case of Chu v. Lau

The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council clarified several aspects of the law concerning just and equitable winding-up petitions,...

Madras High Court Directs Hospital To Submit Necessary Medical Reports to Authorization Committee for Approval of Kidney Transplant

A Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 to issue a Writ of Mandamus to K.G. Hospital, Coimbatore by...

Punjab Woman Evokes Petition for Protection Fearing Honour Killing

In the case of Divya Mattu and another vs State of Punjab and others, the petitioner, Divya, fearing honour...

Punjab Woman Accuses Punjab Police of Keeping Husband in Illegal Custody and Framing Him in a False Case

In the case of Geeta v the State of Punjab, the petitioner evoked a writ petition of habeas corpus...

Addition of Words as Prefixes or Suffixes Is an Infringement of a Registered Trademark: Delhi High Court

Justice Jayanth Nath allowed the Times Group to use its registered trademark “Newshour”, in the case of Bennett Coleman and...

Just Because the Deceased Did Not Have License, Does Not Imply He Was Negligent: Chhattisgarh High Court

In the case of Hemlal & Others v. Dayaram & Others, a Single Bench of Chhattisgarh High Court consisting of Justice...

Follow us

The Division Bench of Delhi HC has set aside costs of Rupees 5 lakh, as well as the finding of ‘judicial adventurism’, against INOX Leisure Ltd., in its suit against PVR Ltd. (INOX vs PVR).

Facts of the Case

In Delhi HC, INOX had filed a suit to seek direction to restrain PVR from interfering with the contracts with the owner of the properties at Amritsar and Mumbai as well as all other existing contracts and contracts in the future.

A Single Judge dismissed the suit last month. He stated that there was no cause of action for relief as claimed against PVR and the relief on the ground of tortious inducement was barred by law. A cost of Rs 5 lakh got imposed on INOX for indulging in judicial adventurism.

Aggrieved by the order, INOX preferred an appeal before the Division Bench.

Arguments by the Parties 

INOX argued that the order had imposed costs as the concept of tortious inducement. INOX stated that the finding that it indulged in ‘judicial adventurism’ was also flawed. The expression was used in respect of judicial overreach by a judicial authority. The same could not get recognized as a litigant.

INOX highlighted that the judgment relied upon by the Single Judge to hold that a suit for tortious inducement was violative of Section 27 of the Contracts Act. It was his judgment that got pronounced after the order had got reserved in INOX’s suit.

PVR argued that having taken a chance by filing the suit INOX could not seek a waiver of cost as well as expunction of the ‘judicial adventurism’ remark. It also pointed out that it was not the first time INOX had filed a suit for tortious inducement. It highlighted the suit regarding Madurai property against PVR in Patiala House Courts.

Court’s Decision

The Court agreed with the contentions put forth by INOX. The Court observed that the Single Judge did not dismiss on the grounds of suppression of material facts or on the ground of existence of parallel or multiple proceedings on the same cause of action.

The Court concluded,

“Consequently, neither the finding of ‘judicial adventurism’ nor the imposition of costs is warranted in the present case.”

The Court moreover ordered that, “Accordingly, the cost of Rupees Five lacs imposed by the learned Single Judge as well as the finding of ‘judicial adventurism’ against the appellant-plaintiff are set aside.”

The appeal was accordingly disposed of in the above terms.


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgements from the court. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe for our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Privy Council Clarifies Approach To Winding up in “Deadlock” Cases in the Case of Chu v. Lau

The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council clarified several aspects of the law concerning just and equitable winding-up petitions, as well as shareholder disputes...

Madras High Court Directs Hospital To Submit Necessary Medical Reports to Authorization Committee for Approval of Kidney Transplant

A Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 to issue a Writ of Mandamus to K.G. Hospital, Coimbatore by P. Sankar & V. Sobana....

Punjab Woman Evokes Petition for Protection Fearing Honour Killing

In the case of Divya Mattu and another vs State of Punjab and others, the petitioner, Divya, fearing honour killing against her by her...

Punjab Woman Accuses Punjab Police of Keeping Husband in Illegal Custody and Framing Him in a False Case

In the case of Geeta v the State of Punjab, the petitioner evoked a writ petition of habeas corpus as she claimed that her...

Addition of Words as Prefixes or Suffixes Is an Infringement of a Registered Trademark: Delhi High Court

Justice Jayanth Nath allowed the Times Group to use its registered trademark “Newshour”, in the case of Bennett Coleman and Co. Ltd v. ARG Outlier...

Just Because the Deceased Did Not Have License, Does Not Imply He Was Negligent: Chhattisgarh High Court

In the case of Hemlal & Others v. Dayaram & Others, a Single Bench of Chhattisgarh High Court consisting of Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal annunciated various...

Hoardings Are Movable Property Under Section 2(3) of DMC Act Subject To the Twin Test: Delhi High Court

Delhi High Court in the case of Delhi International Airport v South Delhi Metropolitan Corporation discussed in detail the provision under Section 2(3) of the DMC...

State Cannot Issue Directions on Rate of Charge of Non-COVID Patients in Private Hospitals: Bombay High Court

On 23rd October 2020, the Nagpur Bench of Bombay High court at Nagpur, consisting of Justice R.K. Deshpande and Justice Pushpa V. Ganediwala gave...

UAPA Cannot Be Used When the Accused Does Not Have an Active Knowledge of the Offence: Delhi High Court

Justice Suresh Kumar Kait held that the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act cannot be charged on the accused when he does not have any knowledge...

US Court Orders Iran To Pay $1.4 BN in Damages To Missing Former FBI Agent’s Family

The United States District Court for the District of Columbia ordered Iran to pay in total $1.45 bn to the Levinson family in punitive...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -