INOX Leisure Limited filed a petition in the Delhi High Court under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution. The Court decided against the petitioner; for it indulged in judicial adventurism against it’s competitor PVR (defendant). Moreover, The Delhi High Court imposed costs of five lakh rupees on INOX Leisure Limited. Justice Rajiv Sahai Endlaw delivered the judgement.
Arguments by INOX
The plaintiff i.e INOX argued that it has binding contracts with the owner of the properties at Mumbai and Amritsar. Adding to it, INOX said that these contracts were reached by the owner of the properties at the instance of the defendant. Being that, the plaintiff sought direction from the court; to restrain the defendant from interfering in the contracts. On the other hand, the defendant refuted the claim; while relying on section 41 (e) and (j) of the Specific Relief Act that bars such an injunction. Furthermore, the defendant is not in any dominating position to indulge in anti-competitive practices.
Noting the contentions, the Court denied granting an injunction against the defendant. Moreover, the court held that the case requires no trial. The High Court observed that “..a person who does not have any contractual relationship with his competitor, is not entitled to, in advancement of its own trade and business, not approach the prospective clients, customers and associates approached by the competitor“. The Court imposed a cost of rupees five lacs on the petitioner; while ruling against it.