PVR INOX challenges AAI’s refusal to allow operation of its Rs 20 crore multiplex at Chennai airport’s Aerohub. Madras High Court orders status quo and seeks AAI’s response by July 8.
CHENNAI: Today, June 26, popular cinema operator PVR INOX has filed a fresh writ petition in the Madras High Court against an order issued by the Airports Authority of India (AAI) on June 20, 2025.
The order from AAI denies permission to operate a five-screen multiplex inside the Aerohub – a multi-level car parking and commercial complex at the Chennai airport.
The matter came up before Justice N. Anand Venkatesh on Thursday. The court directed the AAI to file its counter affidavit by July 8 and, in the meantime, ordered that the current situation be maintained without any changes.
Senior Advocate P.S. Raman, appearing on behalf of PVR INOX, informed the court that the company had already invested Rs 20 crore in the multiplex project.
He strongly argued that the cinema should not be shut down abruptly.
He told the court,
“It could not be closed down at will,”
On the other side, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) AR.L. Sundaresan, appearing with AAI counsel Ramaswamy Meyyappan, downplayed the urgency of the matter.
He told the court that the city of Chennai would not suffer much if there was “just one multiplex” less. The ASG further pointed out that AAI had no direct contractual relationship with PVR INOX.
He submitted,
“AAI had not signed any direct contract with the multiplex operator,”
Mr. Raman, however, explained that the AAI had entered into a development agreement with Meenambakkam Realty Private Limited, which is a special purpose vehicle (SPV) created by Olympia Techpark (Chennai) Private Limited.
This SPV was responsible for the construction of the Aerohub. PVR INOX, he said, was operating under a sub-license agreement from Meenambakkam Realty.
He further stated that even though AAI had prematurely terminated the main development agreement with Meenambakkam Realty, it had not asked any of the other commercial businesses to shut down.
Only the multiplex had been singled out for closure on the grounds that a cinema hall is not permitted under the Airports Authority of India Act, 1994.
Mr. Raman countered this reasoning by arguing that there is no specific provision in the Act that bans cinema halls at airports.
He said.,
“The AAI Act does not contain any express prohibition on operation of cinema halls at the airports,”
He cited Section 12(f) of the Act, which permits AAI to develop and maintain
“hotels, restaurants or restrooms either at the airports or near the airports.”
Mr. Raman raised a strong point by questioning the presence of other commercial activities within the Aerohub complex.
He said,
“If it is the case of AAI that nothing but for hotels, restaurants and restrooms can be operated by AAI, then how is it that Ramraj Cotton is selling dhotis and Higginbothams is selling books. There is a gymnasium too and every other conceivable activity that could be found in any other shopping mall is found in the Aerohub too,”
He concluded his arguments by asserting that the cinema hall was not an illegal construction and had received approval from the AAI at the planning stage itself.
Therefore, the AAI could not now act as if the multiplex had come up without permission.
Mr. Raman submitted,
“The authority was bound by the doctrine of promissory estoppel since the construction of the cinema hall was done with the full consent of AAI which had approved the building plan,”
The matter is now posted for further hearing on July 8, and the court has asked all parties to maintain status quo till then.
Click Here to Read More Reports On Theaters
