Delhi High Court
Vhb Life Sciences Inc vs Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp on 12 October, 2018
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: October 12, 2018
+ FAO(OS) 105/2018
VHB LIFE SCIENCES INC ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Amarjit Singh, Mr. Ravikesh
Sinha and Ms. Shubhi Sharma, Advs.
versus
MERCK SHARP & DOHME CORP ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Pravin Anand, Ms. Vaishali Mittal
and Ms. Mrinali Menon, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J. (ORAL)
1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant challenging the order of the
learned Single Judge dated 7th May, 2018 in Suit No. CS(OS) 641/2008,
whereby the learned Single Judge has closed the opportunity of the appellant
herein to cross-examine PW-1 K.G. Ananthakrishnan.
2. Mr. Pravin Anand, learned counsel for the respondent had, on the last
date of hearing, taken an objection with regard to the maintainability of the
appeal on the ground that the impugned order is not an appealable order
under Order 43 Rule 1 CPC. He had relied upon the judgment of the
Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of HPL India Ltd. And Ors. v.
QRG Enterprises and Anr. 238 (2017) DLT 123 (DB). Today he has also
relied upon three judgments of this Court in Bull Machines Pvt. Ltd. V. JC.
Bamford Excavators Ltd. and Anr. FAO (OS) 37/2018 decided on 14th
March, 2018; Oberoi Realty Ltd. and Ors. v. EIH Ltd. and Ors.
FAO(OS)(COMM) 215/2018 decided on 24th September, 2018 and;
Micromax Informatics Ltd. v. Vijay Jain and Ors. FAO(OS) 310/2017
decided on 13th December, 2017.
3. On this submission of Mr. Pravin Anand, Mr. Amarjit Singh, learned
counsel appearing for the appellant submits that judgment of this court in
HPL India Ltd. and Ors. (supra) is under challenge before the Supreme
Court and is still pending consideration. He has drawn our attention to two
orders passed by the Supreme Court on 16th February, 2017 and 15th March,
2018. According to him, in the earlier order dated 16 th February, 2017, the
Supreme Court had directed that the disputed documents, which were the
subject matter of the appeal to be taken on record subject to the result of the
case. Mr. Amarjit Singh states that the appellant be permitted to cross-
examine Mr. K.G. Ananthakrishnan subject to the outcome of the appeal
pending before this Court.
4. We are not impressed by the submission made by Mr. Singh for the
simple reason that there is no stay on the order of HPL India Ltd. and Ors.
(Supra). Further, Mr. Anand is justified in relying upon other judgments of
the Coordinate Bench of this Court taking similar view.
5. In view of the above an order on the application under Order 15(A)
read with Section 151 CPC is not an appealable order under Order 43 Rule 1
CPC and also in view of the Judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Court
in HPL India Ltd. and Ors. (supra), the appeal is not maintainable. The
same is dismissed.
CM No. 25841/2018 (for stay)
Dismissed as infructuous.
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J
CHIEF JUSTICE
OCTOBER 12, 2018/jg
