Calcutta High Court
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited ... vs State Bank Of India And Anr on 29 October, 2025
OCD-14
ORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
COMMERCIAL DIVISION
ORIGINAL SIDE
CS-COM/145/2024
[OLD NO. CS/39/2019]
SUN PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES LIMITED AND ANR.
VS
STATE BANK OF INDIA AND ANR.
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE KRISHNA RAO
Date: October 29, 2025.
Appearance:
Ms. Ronjaboti Sen, Adv.
Ms. Sarada Hariharan, Adv.
... for the plaintiffs
Mr. Sourojit Dasgupta, Adv.
Mr. Souvik Mazumder, Adv.
... for the defendants
1.
Learned Counsel for the plaintiff draws the attention of this Court
to the order dated 26th September, 2025 and submits that in the
said order this Court has inadvertently recorded that discovery
and inspection of the documents have not been completed but by
an order dated 20th August, 2025, it is mentioned that the
discovery and inspection have been completed.
2. Learned Counsel for the defendants submit that due to
inadvertence, the defendants have made a submission that
discovery and inspection have not been completed. Subsequently,
the defendants on verification of the document find that the
discovery and inspection of the documents have been completed.
As discovery and inspection of the documents have been
completed, both the parties have filed their affidavits of admission
and denial of the documents. The parties have also filed their
suggested issues.
3. Heard the Learned Counsel for the parties. Perused the pleadings
and the suggested issues, the following issues are framed:
-:I S S U E S:-
i. Whether the Plaintiff No.1 is entitled to a decree for
Rs. 38.50 crores against the Defendant No. 1, as
pleaded in paragraph 37 of the plaint?
ii. Whether the Plaintiff No.1 is entitled to a decree for
Rs. 115.50 crores against the Defendant No.1, as
pleaded in paragraph 37A of the plaint?
iii. Whether the Plaintiff No.2 is entitled to a decree for
Rs. 6.50 crores against the Defendant No.1, as
pleaded in paragraph 37 of the plaint?
iv. Whether the Plaintiff No.2 is entitled to a decree for
Rs. 19.50 crores against the Defendant No.1, as
pleaded in paragraph 37B of the plaint?
v. Whether the Plaintiffs are entitled to pendente lite
interest and interest on judgment at the rate of
18% per annum till realization?
vi. Whether the Plaintiffs are entitled to declaration
that the bank guarantees bearing nos.
136GM01162920002 and OGT0009160007099
both dated 21 October 2016 and lastly extended on
17th January 2019 and 10th January 2019,
respectively, were not enforceable and/or could not
have been invoked by the Defendant No.1 to claim
any payment thereunder?
vii. Whether the Plaintiffs are entitled to declaration
that the Plaintiffs are entitled to and have duly
avoided the transaction with the Defendant No.1
recorded in the letter of intent dated 7th October
2016 and that the same is not binding on the
Plaintiffs?
viii. Whether the Plaintiffs are entitled to costs?
ix. Whether the plaintiff had satisfied itself with regard
to the Letter of Intent dated 7th October, 2016?
x. Was the plaintiff entitled to refund of the advance
amount?
xi. Was the plaintiff entitled to return of the Bank
Guarantees?
xii. Whether the defendant committed any fraud, as
pleaded in the plaint?
xiii. Whether the Plaintiffs were entitled to unilaterally
withdraw from the transaction by email dated
August 18, 2017, after entering into Sale
Agreements?
xiv. Has the defendant committed any violation of the
Letter of Intent dated 7th October 2016?
xv. Is the plaintiff entitled to any reliefs as sought for?
5. The plaintiff is directed to file Judge's Brief of Documents within
four weeks after supplying the copy to the learned Counsel for the
defendants.
6. Affidavit of evidence be filed within two weeks thereafter.
7. List the matter on 6th January, 2025 at 3:00 pm.
(KRISHNA RAO, J.)
S.Mandi
