Big win for PVR, BookMyShow! Bombay HC permits convenience fees on online movie tickets, calls it ‘fundamental right'
The government has no authority under the Maharashtra Entertainment Duty Act (MED Act) to issue such orders, a bench of Justices MS Sonak and Jitendra Jain observed, as per a report by the Bar and Bench. These directives issued by the government were in violation of the fundamental right to carry on business under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, the judges said on Thursday.
The bench, therefore, struck down part of Government Orders (GOs) issued by Maharashtra that barred multiplexes from charging such fees.
'Therefore, in our view, the impugned G.O.s, to the extent that they prohibit collection of convenience fees on the tickets booked online, violates Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, and therefore, the impugned G.O.s to the extent challenged herein is required to be quashed and set aside,' the Bombay HC ruled.
Passing its order, the Bombay High Court further said that if a customer finds it convenient to book the ticket online and pay the fees, the state cannot restrain the online platforms and movie theatres.
'Suppose the customer feels it convenient to book the tickets online by not going to the theatre and paying the convenience fees. In that case, the respondents cannot restrain the petitioners from collecting the convenience fees since for providing this facility of online booking, the theatre owners/ petitioners have to invest in the technology,' the high court said.
PVR Limited and Big Tree Entertainment Private Limited (Book My Show) had earlier filed a petition at the Bombay HC, challenging two Government Orders issued between April 2013 and March 2014.
Ruling in favour of PVR and Big Tree Entertainment, the bench further said that the government cannot micromanage economic activity in this way.
'If business owners are not permitted to determine the various facets of their business (in accordance with law), economic activity would come to a grinding halt,' it said.
The Maharashtra government's order directed multiplexes and online platforms to not charge customers any additional fees other than the ticket price and applicable entertainment duty.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
India Today
14 hours ago
- India Today
Bombay High Court raps auto drivers, refuses to entertain plea against bike taxis
In a strong rebuke to auto-rickshaw drivers seeking to curb bike taxi operations in Mumbai, the Bombay High Court on Monday refused to entertain a petition that alleged illegal plying of app-based bike taxis using private vehicles. The court also criticised the city's traditional auto and taxi services, remarking that they often operate like a "cartel."A bench comprising Justices Revati Mohite Dere and Neela Gokhale came down heavily on four Mumbai auto-rickshaw drivers, who had filed a petition urging the court to enforce restrictions against bike taxis operated by aggregators like Rapido. The petitioners alleged that the bike taxis were using white number plates — designated for private vehicles — instead of the required yellow-and-black transport plates, and were thus operating illegally, affecting their the court declined to intervene, observing that the petition appeared aimed at creating a monopoly. 'You want to indirectly take an order and put pressure on them (bike services). There cannot be a monopoly. If a single person has to travel, then it is better to take a bike than an auto or taxi,' the bench stated. The state government had recently notified the Maharashtra Bike-Taxi Rules, 2025, on July 4, paving the way for regulated operations of app-based bike taxis, subject to licensing, safety, and operational the petitioners claimed they were merely seeking enforcement of the rules against unlicensed vehicles, the bench was unpersuaded. 'Everyone has seen the high-handedness of autorickshaw and taxi drivers. That is why people prefer alternatives. Try catching a rickshaw during monsoon,' the bench the judges pointed out the irony in the petitioners' argument about rule enforcement. 'This will stop only when you stop refusing to take people. We have seen on the streets how taxi and rickshaw drivers treat customers — their language, tone, and high-handedness. Each one of us has faced this.'Criticising the perceived entitlement of traditional transport operators, the bench added, 'Tomorrow you will say even the metro should not start. It is because of the high-handedness of the 'kali peelis' (local way of calling taxis in Mumbai) that Ola and Uber started picking up.'The court also called out the practice of rickshaw drivers allegedly forming informal cartels — refusing passengers and preventing others from taking them with the bench indicating it would dismiss the petition, the petitioners chose to withdraw it.- EndsMust Watch
Indian Express
2 days ago
- Indian Express
28 Maharashtra sugar mills face action for non-payment of dues to farmers
The sugar commissionerate recently issued Revenue Recovery Code (RRC) against 28 sugar mills in Maharashtra for failing to clear their dues to cane farmers for the 2024-25 season. These mills now face the possibility of their sugar stocks being seized and auctioned to pay farmers their dues. A report from the sugar commissionerate shows that mills in the state had crushed 854.50 lakh tonnes of cane and were expected to pay Rs 31,587 crore as the Fair Remunerative Price (FRP) to farmers for cane purchased from them. Till July 15, Maharashtra reported 98.70 per cent of clearance of cane dues. A total of 135 mills have cleared 100 per cent of their FRP till date. Meanwhile, the Bombay High Court struck down the 2022 government resolution that allowed FRP to be paid in parts. FRP is linked with sugar recovery – which is the ratio between sugar produced and cane crushed – and the 2022 resolution had mandated that payment be done as per the recovery of the current season. This meant the first payment would be as per the base recovery, and once the season is over, the rest would be paid as per the final recovery percentage of the mill. This was a break from the past, where the mills paid the FRP as per the recovery of the last season, and most mills paid FRP in one instalment. Farmer leader Raju Shetti had moved the Bombay High Court against this move, and the high court had struck down the 2022 government resolution. The state government has moved the Supreme Court against this decision. Yogesh Pande, Spokesperson, Swabhimani Shetkari Sanghatana, said, 'We have already filed a caveat in the Supreme Court in this regard. We will pursue the matter to its logical end.' Partha Sarathi Biwas is an Assistant Editor with The Indian Express with 10+ years of experience in reporting on Agriculture, Commodities and Developmental issues. He has been with The Indian Express since 2011 and earlier worked with DNA. Partha's report about Farmers Producer Companies (FPC) as well long pieces on various agricultural issues have been cited by various academic publications including those published by the Government of India. He is often invited as a visiting faculty to various schools of journalism to talk about development journalism and rural reporting. In his spare time Partha trains for marathons and has participated in multiple marathons and half marathons. ... Read More
Time of India
2 days ago
- Time of India
MahaRERA says both physical and virtual hearings available after HC directive on hybrid option
Pune: Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) on Saturday said it already offers both physical and virtual modes of hearing complaints, allowing parties to appear in person whenever such requests are made by them. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now The statement follows a recent Bombay High Court directive asking MahaRERA to resume hybrid hearings, underlining that access to justice must include the option of physical presence. "We have been offering physical hearings as part of our regular functioning for those who opt for it. While virtual hearings are more commonly preferred, we do not deny physical hearings to anyone," a senior MahaRERA official told TOI. The court's directive came during the hearing of a petition filed by homebuyer Mayur Desai, who approached the high court seeking restoration of hybrid hearings and faster execution of orders pending since March 2024. Justices Revati Mohite Dere and Neela Gokhale observed that "access to justice is not merely about providing virtual access but ensuring that parties also have the right to appear physically." While MahaRERA's counsel submitted that physical hearings are available upon request, the court expressed concern over the perceived emphasis on virtual-only proceedings when most courts have already resumed hybrid hearings. It also directed the authority to review its April 2025 circular and standard operating procedures concerning urgent listings, enforcement of orders, case mentions, and pronouncement of reserved orders. MahaRERA officials said the authority has been conducting in-person hearings regularly. "Over the past six months, 81 complaints were heard physically across seven sessions by the chairperson, and another 19 matters were heard twice in person. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now One matter was heard twice by the full bench," the official said. In a bid to improve efficiency and accessibility, the authority has introduced several procedural reforms. These include pronouncement of orders through pre-notified cause lists with advance intimation to parties, and attendance duly recorded. Circular No. 34(A), issued on April 8, 2025, permits out-of-turn listing of urgent matters, such as life-threatening illnesses, court-directed cases, or applications for rectification. Moreover, on MahaRERA's recommendation, the state govt appointed revenue recovery officers in six districts with high pendency through a govt order issued on April 22, 2025. MahaRERA officials said these steps are part of its broader efforts to build a transparent, efficient, and citizen-friendly grievance redressal system under Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. Over the last six months, MahaRERA had disposed of 3,002 complaints. "There is demand for physical hearings, mainly from lawyers who practice exclusively in MahaRERA. The rest of the legal fraternity generally prefers virtual hearings due to their convenience. Senior counsels from the high court now frequently appear before MahaRERA virtually, raising the quality of arguments and adjudication," said a homebuyer. Advocate Godfrey Pimenta, trustee of Watchdog Foundation and a regular participant in MahaRERA-related cases, said online hearings work well for simpler RERA matters but added that more complex matters may require physical hearings for credibility assessment. "A well-balanced hybrid model ensures dignity, efficiency, and fairness. I've argued RERA cases from Dallas and London—virtual platforms save time, reduce costs, and make document filing easier," he said. --- **BOX: MahaRERA Complaint Statistics (as of March 2025)** * **Total complaints filed: 29,222 * **Complaints disposed of: 21,520 (73.64%) * **Pending complaints:7,702 * **Non-compliance applications filed: 4,865 * **Disposed: 4,596 (94.47%) * **Pending: 269
