The arbitrator allowed PVR INOX's claim against the Gurugram builder.




ANI |
Updated:
February 26, 2024 23:52 IST

New Delhi [India]Feb 26 (ANI): Punjab and Haryana High Court-appointed arbitrator, MP Mehndi Rata (ex-judge) has dismissed a case filed by PVR INOX Ltd, India's largest multiplex cinema operating company, against a builder in Gurugram. The claim is allowed. Ordered to refund the full security deposit with interest at 18% per annum from the date of payment.
Passing the order, the arbitrator held that the plaintiff had legally terminated the MOU and sought refund of the security money within its rights, but the defendant failed to refund the money despite the demand, and thus , the plaintiff was forced to invoke the arbitration clause and to initiate these proceedings.
“In the circumstances of the case, I consider that the claimant is entitled to costs of the proceedings,” said the arbitrator.
“Consequently, I pass an award in favor of the claimant and against the defendant for recovery of Rs.24,93,750 (towards refund of security money) with pre-claim interest (simple) at the rate of 18 per cent per annum. said the arbitrator
The claimant shall also be entitled to pendente lite as well as future interest at the same rate on the principal amount from the date of award till realization and shall further be entitled to costs of arbitration proceedings. The arbitrator further held that the counter claim raised by the respondent was rejected.

The arbitrator said that the MOU dated July 26, 2016, executed for a “multiplex” in a commercial mall in Sector-92, Gurugram, was alleged by PVR to be a “trademark/trade name of PVR”. Legally terminated based on unauthorized use. For promotion and marketing of the said mall/property by builder M/s. AMB Infraventure Pvt. Ltd. without prior approval from PVR against the terms of the said MoU.
PVR represented through Advocate Gehlot, in the mediation produced brochures and advertisements/floor plans, leaflets mentioning “PVR Cinema for Sale” and alleged falsehoods made by the builder to the public. Representation “Only one PVR screen remaining and 21 year lease signed. With PVR” also produced printouts from the builder's own website, according to which the builder has marketed/marketed in the said property without permission. has used “PVR's Trade Mark/Name” for promotion/sale and the construction of the said goods has not yet been completed, which is appreciated. Considered and allowed by the arbitrator in favor of PVR.
It was contended by the advocates representing Gehlot including PVR that the builder has misappropriated the goodwill and reputation of PVR and based on the goodwill of PVR the commercial space/shops in the said property. is selling and misrepresenting to the general public that a 21 year lease has been signed with PVR.
The arbitrator also held that the builder failed to complete the construction and hand over the possession of the said commercial space for “multiplex” within 72 months, the period provided in the said MOU and the arbitration in favor of PVR. Also paid the price.
The arbitrator rejected all the claims of the builder M/s. AMB Infraventure, including execution of lease deed and balance security deposit for operating a “multiplex” in the said property by PVR and litigation costs and compensation of Rs.20 lakhs demanded by the builder.
The claimant PVR was represented by Sumeet Gehlot and TS Thakuran, advocates of Faithful Advocate and Solicitors. (ANI)



Leave a Comment

“The Untold Story: Yung Miami’s Response to Jimmy Butler’s Advances During an NBA Playoff Game” “Unveiling the Secrets: 15 Astonishing Facts About the PGA Championship”