Sat. Jul 4th, 2020

Inox Leisure Limited vs Pvr Limited on 24 June, 2020

1 min read

1. The appeal has been heard by way of video conferencing.
2. Present appeal has been filed challenging the final judgment and order
dated 18th May, 2020 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the
appellant-plaintiff’s suit was dismissed at the pre-trial stage.

RFA (OS) 26/2020 Page 1 of 6
3. Mr. Amit Sibal, learned senior counsel for appellant-plaintiff states
that in view of the current material adverse change in business environment,
he has instructions not to press the present appeal on merits.
4. He, however, states that the learned Single Judge in the impugned
order has erroneously imposed the cost of Rupees Five lacs upon the
appellant-plaintiff, even when, the concept of tortiuous inducement/
interference of binding agreements is known to constitute a cause of action
to file a suit for damages/injunction. [See Tata Sons Limited v. Mastech
Corpn. & Ors., 1999 SCCOnline Mad 368, paras 9 and 11; Balailal
Mukherjee & Co. (P) Ltd. Vs. Sea Traders Private Ltd., 1990 SCC OnLine
Cal 55, para 6 and 21; Oravel Stays Pvt. Ltd. v. Hoteliers Welfare
Association & Ors., Delhi High Court, CS (OS) No. 322/2019, order dated
19 July 2019, paras 6 and 7; Ambience Space Sellers Ltd. vs. Asia
Industrial Technology Pvt. Ltd., 1996 SCC OnLine Bom 586, paras 7, 11,
13, 16, 17, and 38; Aasia Industrial Technologies Ltd. v. Ambience Space
Sellers Ltd, 1997 SCC OnLine Bom 681, paras 15, 16, 18 and 32; and
Lindsay International Pvt. Ltd. v. Laxmi Niwas Mittal, 2017 SCC Online
Cal 14920, paras 70, 71 and 98.]

Source: Indian Kanoon

Leave a Reply