Interference with contractual relations is not actionable in India if it contravenes public policy under the Indian Contract Act, Section 27, which renders such agreements void.

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 the plaintiff; (iii) that the plaintiff, on learning of development underway of a property by the name of Suraj Chanda Tara Cinemas in Amritsar, undertook a feasibility study of running a multiplex in the said locality and found it to be a financially profitable business opportunity; (iv) accordingly in or about July, 2017, the plaintiff entered into negotiations with the developer of the said property at Amritsar, for a long term agreement with respect to the property and held various meetings with the said developer; (v) the defendant was also negotiating with the said developer for entering into an agreement/arrangement with respect to the property under development; (vi) however subsequently it was the plaintiff which entered into a binding term sheet with the developer whereunder the developer agreed to lease the said property to the plaintiff for a period of 15 years; (vii) though the said term sheet provided for a main Transaction Document to be subsequently executed, but the same was a mere formality and the term sheet was otherwise binding on the plaintiff and the developer and the plaintiff also paid security deposit to the developer; (viii) the plaintiff thereafter, besides proceeding with drawing up of the main Transaction Document, also started to make investments in the project; (ix) the plaintiff learnt that the defendant was actively pursuing the developer for the purposes of entering into an agreement for the same property, despite the fact that the plaintiff had already executed a binding term sheet therefor; (x) though the plaintiff informed the defendant of having executed a binding term sheet with the developer at Amritsar and also asked the defendant to desist from pursuing the developer but the defendant did not respond and continued to induce the developer to breach the binding term sheet with the plaintiff; (xi) the defendant, in the past also had indulged in similar acts of interfering in agreements entered into or proposed to be entered into by the plaintiff with others, especially with respect to (a) property at Madurai and with respect whereto the plaintiff had also instituted a suit in New Delhi District Court and which suit was pending adjudication; and (b) property at Juhu, Mumbai with respect whereto also the plaintiff had entered into a term sheet and paid security deposit and was in the process of obtaining possession when the defendant starting influencing and inducing the owner t