SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

DELHI HIGH COURT
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
Inox Leisure Limited – Appellant
Versus
PVR Limited – Respondent


JUDGMENT

1. The sole plaintiff has instituted this suit against the sole defendant, for (i) permanent injunction, to restrain the defendant from attempting to procure and/or attempting to induce a breach/termination of any agreement/arrangement between the third parties and the plaintiff in respect of non-functional properties of the plaintiff across India; (ii) permanent injunction, to restrain the defendant from entering into any agreement or arrangement with any third party in relation to any right/interest of the defendant with respect to non-functional properties across India i.e. where an agreement/arrangement for grant of property rights to the plaintiff has been executed but multiplex operations have not commenced; and (iii) recovery of nominal damages of Rs.2,25,00,000/-.

2. It is inter alia the case of the plaintiff, (i) that the plaintiff is engaged in the business of running and operating multiplex cinemas at various locations in India and the defendant is a competitor of the plaintiff; (ii) that the plaintiff has been expanding its footprint to new locations, where the market of multiplex cinema is maturing and is thus presenting viable business opportunities for t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top