- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
Delhi High Court Appoints Arbitrator To Resolve Dispute Between PVR INOX And Ansal Plaza Mal
![PVR-INOX PVR-INOX](https://www.legaleraonline.com/h-upload/2024/08/06/1327226-pvr-inox.webp)
Delhi High Court Appoints Arbitrator To Resolve Dispute Between PVR INOX And Ansal Plaza Mal
In a significant development, the Delhi High Court has appointed advocate Sumeet Pushkarna as the arbitrator to resolve disputes between PVR INOX and Greater Noida's Ansal Plaza Mall. The order, passed on July 30 by Justice C Hari Shankar, addresses the issues stemming from the sealing of PVR INOX's 4-screen multiplex in Ansal Plaza Mall due to alleged non-payment of government dues by the lessor, Sheetal Ansal.
The court's decision followed PVR INOX's filing of two arbitration petitions, in which the cinema chain is claiming approximately ₹4.5 crores from Ansal. The dispute arose after the multiplex was sealed on July 23, 2022, as a result of the Gautam Budh Nagar authorities issuing a recovery order for statutory dues amounting to ₹26.33 crores in the name of Ansal Property & Infrastructure Ltd.
PVR INOX contends that despite repeated requests, the lessor failed to settle the dues with the government authorities, leading to the multiplex's closure. The company argues that under the lease agreement, the lessor is responsible for paying all taxes, levies, and charges imposed by government authorities. Due to the alleged breach of these obligations by Ansal, PVR INOX suffered substantial losses as it was unable to access or operate its cinema business at the mall.
On the other hand, Ansal’s legal counsel informed the court that they also have a counter-claim against PVR INOX, estimated to be around ₹4 to ₹5 crores. The Court has allowed Ansal to present their legal objections and counterclaims before the arbitral tribunal.
Justice Shankar noted, “Prima facie, an arbitrable dispute has arisen between the parties, which is amenable to arbitration in terms of the arbitration clause extracted hereinabove. Accordingly, as the parties have not been able to come to a consensus regarding the arbitrator to arbitrate on the disputes, this Court has to intervene. Accordingly, this Court appoints Mr. Sumeet Pushkarna, Advocate, as the arbitrator to arbitrate on the disputes between the parties.”
This case will now proceed to arbitration, where both parties will have the opportunity to present their claims and counter-claims for resolution.