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

- Advertisement -

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.

- Advertisement -

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.

- Advertisement -

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.”

- Advertisement -

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.

- Advertisement -
- Advertisement -

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.

About the Author

- Advertisement -
- Advertisement -spot_img