DB of HC sets aside Single Judge order of ₹5 Lakh Cost and ‘Judicial Adventurism’ remark against INOX2 min read

By- Anusha Agarwal

On Friday, the Delhi High Court set aside the Rs 5 lakh cost imposed on multiplex giant INOX Leisure Ltd.
A division bench of the high court presided over by Justice Manmohan and Justice 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 tortiuous 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 h igh court presided over by Justice Rajiv Sahai Endlaw 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 5,00,000, 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.
The order has been passed by a bench comprising of Justice Manmohan and Justice Sanjeev Narula on 24-06-2020.

READ ALSO- Bombay High Court rules that ISKCON is a “well-known trademark in India”