Brands
Q1-2016: Inox y-o-y box office collections up 53%, PAT more than quadruples
BENGALURU: Inox Leisure Limited reported 53 per cent increase in box office collection (GBO) to Rs 239.38 crore (68.7 per cent of Total Revenue or TR) in the quarter ended 30 June, 2015 (Q1-2016) as compared to the Rs 156.56 crore (67.4 per cent of TR) in Q1-2015 and a whopping 77.5 per cent more than the Rs 134.80 crore (61.9 per cent of TR) in Q4-2015, hence reversing falling GBO trend in FY-2015.
Performance of movies like Tanu Weds Manu Returns (GBO Rs 31.11 crore, 19 lakh footfalls); Piku (GBO Rs 21.80 crore, 13 lakh footfalls), Furious 7 (GBO Rs 18.93 crore, 11 lakh footfalls), ABCD2 (GBO Rs 18.45 crore, 10 lakh footfalls) and Avengers-Age of Ultron drove the resurgence in revenue as well profit after tax (PAT).
Note: (1) 100,00,000 = 100 lakh = 10 million = 1 crore
(2) Figures include Satyam Cineplexes Limited, which became wholly owned subsidiary of the company on 8 August, 2014.
The company’s PAT in Q1-2016 more than quadrupled (up 4.52 times) to Rs 25.26 crore (7.2 per cent margin) as compared to the Rs 4.52 crore (two per cent margin) in Q1-2015. Inox had reported a loss of Rs 4.06 crore in the immediate trailing quarter.
The company’s TR in Q1-2016 at Rs 348.68 crore was 50 per cent more than the Rs 232.38 crore in Q1-2015 and was 60 per cent more than the Rs 217.75 crore in Q4-2015.
Footfalls, occupancy rates and average ticket price:
Inox reported 1.45 crore footfalls in Q1-2016 and an occupancy rate of 33 per cent as compared to the 0.99 crore footfalls and an occupancy rate of 26 per cent in Q1-2015 and 0.82 crore footfalls and an occupancy rate of 20 per cent in the immediate trailing quarter.
Average ticket price (ATP) in Q1-2016 increased to Rs 165 as compared to Rs 159 in the corresponding year ago quarter and Rs 164 in the previous quarter.
Advertising, food and beverages and other operating revenues:
The company reported 38.5 per cent higher advertising revenue in Q1-2016 at Rs 20.72 crore (5.9 per cent of TR) from Rs 14.96 crore (6.4 per cent of TR) in Q1-2015 and was 4.7 per cent more than the Rs 19.79 crore (9.1 per cent of TR) in Q4-2015.
Food and Beverages (F&B) revenue in Q1-2016 increased 45.5 per cent to Rs 73.89 crore (21.2 per cent of TR) as compared to the Rs 47.21 crore (20.3 per cent of TR) in Q1-2015 and almost doubled (up 97.4 per cent) as compared to the Rs 37.43 crore (17.2 per cent of TR) in Q4-2015.
Other operating revenue increased 7.8 per cent to Rs 14.70 crore (4.2 per cent of TR) in Q1-2016 from Rs 13.64 crore (5.9 per cent of TR) in Q1-2015, but fell 42.9 per cent as compared to the Rs 25.73 crore (11.8 per cent of TR) in Q4-2015.
Entertainment Tax, distributors’ share, F&B costs, rents, et al:
Inox paid 61.8 per cent higher entertainment tax in Q1-2016 at Rs 42.63 crore (13.3 per cent of TR) as compared to the Rs 28.57 crore (12.3 per cent of TR) in Q1-2015
and more than double (2.03 times) the Rs 22.76 crore (10.5 per cent of TR) in Q4-2015.
Distributors’ share in Q1-2016 at Rs 85.21 crore was (24.4 per cent of TR, 35.6 per cent of GBO) was 45.9 per cent more than the Rs 58.40 crore (25.1 per cent of TR, 37.3 per cent of GBO) in Q1-2015 and was 78.5 per cent more than the Rs 47.75 crore (20.5 per cent of TR, 37.7 per cent of GBO) in Q4-2015.
F&B costs in Q1-2016 increased 50 per cent to Rs 18.38 crore (5.3 per cent of TR) as compared to the Rs 12.25 crore (5.3 per cent of TR) and was 77.6 per cent more than the Rs 10.35 crore (4.8 per cent of TR) in Q4-2015.
Inox paid 26.9 per cent higher property rent, conducting fees and common facility charges (rent) in Q1-2016 at Rs 49.05 crore (14.1 per cent of TR) as compared to the Rs 38.64 crore (16.6 per cent of TR) in Q1-2015 and 5.2 per cent more than the Rs 46.63 crore (21.4 per cent of TR) in Q4-2015.
Brands
Maharashtra panel orders Lodha to refund Rs 5 crore to homebuyers
Consumer court flags unfair practices in long-running property dispute case
MUMBAI: In a sharp rebuke to one of India’s biggest real estate players, the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has directed Macrotech Developers to refund nearly Rs 5 crore to a senior citizen couple, Uttam and Anindita Chatterjee. The ruling, delivered on March 13, 2026, calls out the developer for “deficiency in service” and “unfair trade practices”, bringing closure to a dispute that has stretched over a decade.
The case traces back to 2015, when the couple booked a 3-BHK flat at World Towers in Lower Parel for Rs 12.22 crore, with possession promised within a year. What followed was a series of changes that complicated matters. After deciding to exit the project, they were persuaded to shift to a 4-BHK in another development priced at Rs 8 crore, with delivery scheduled for 2018. However, within months, the price was allegedly increased to Rs 10 crore. After demonetisation reshaped the market, similar flats were reportedly being offered at lower prices, but the couple were not given the benefit.
Despite paying over Rs 2.83 crore, the couple neither received possession nor clarity. Instead, in 2018, the developer unilaterally cancelled the booking, retained part of the amount as earnest money, and argued that the buyers were investors rather than consumers. The commission rejected this claim, observing that casual references to “investment” do not take away consumer rights when the purchase intent is residential.
The bench also held that the developer could not penalise buyers for payment delays while failing to meet its own delivery commitments. It noted the lack of formal documentation for revised terms and termed the prolonged retention of funds without delivering a home as exploitative.
As part of its order, the commission directed the developer to refund Rs 2.83 crore paid by the couple, along with interest at 10 per cent per annum, amounting to around Rs 2.12 crore. In addition, Rs 1 lakh has been awarded for mental agony and Rs 50,000 towards litigation costs, taking the total payout to over Rs 5 crore. The developer has been asked to comply within two months.
For now, the ruling serves as a reminder that in real estate, shifting terms and delayed promises can carry a significant cost.
