The plaintiff cannot be permitted to expand its remedies beyond that provided for in law.
The Delhi High Court Monday imposed a cost of Rs five lakh on multiplex operator INOX Leisure Ltd 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. Justice Rajiv Sahai Endlaw dismissed the suit filed by INOX Leisure 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, noted the case of INOX is that it had binding contracts with the developer/owner of the properties at 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 plaintiff has sought to restrain the defendant from doing so and also from doing this with regard to other properties where INOX has existing contracts or may have in future.
PVR opposed the suit saying INOX filed the plaint seeking a blanket order across India without even producing any agreements with respect to specific property and it was an attempt to stifle the defendant’s choice as its competitor.
The high court was of the opinion that even if it is believed that INOX is having existing binding contracts and even if PVR is indeed interfering therein or causing breach thereof, the plaintiff is not entitled to restrain the defendant.
“No trial is required in this regard in as much as the same is purely a question of law,” it said.
The judge reiterated that the grant of injunction claimed by INOX on the premise of PVR’s actions comprising a tortious act of interference with contractual relations of the plaintiff, would be in violation of the fundamental right of the defendant, its promoters and directors to carry on trade and business, without any law having been enacted by the State
The high court said the law entitles the plaintiff to seek relief of specific performance against those with whom it has a contractual relationship and with which contractual relationship the defendant is alleged to be interfering. The plaintiff cannot be permitted to expand its remedies beyond that provided for in law.
(Note: The story has been published without modifications to the text. Only the headline has been changed.)