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

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


Table of Content
1. plaintiff's claim for injunction and damages. (Para 1 , 2)
2. court's consideration of preliminary issues. (Para 3 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 14)
3. arguments on maintainability and tortious interference. (Para 4 , 10 , 11 , 12)
4. court's ruling on claims and legal standing. (Para 15 , 17 , 24)
5. suit dismissed with costs. (Para 25)

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 pl

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