Delhi High Court
Shiv Shivam Pharma & Ors vs Astrazeneca Ab & Anr on 10 June, 2020
#1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment Delivered On: 10.06.2020
FAO(OS) (COMM) 67/2020, CM APPL. 12232/2020, CM APPL.
12233/2020 & CM APPL. 12234/2020
SHIVAM PHARMA & ORS. ......Appellants
versus
ASTRAZENECA AB & ANR. ......Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Appellants : Mr. Sai Deepak, Advocate with Mr. Guruswamy
Natraj, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Sudhir Chandra, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Pravin
Anand, Ms. Vaishali Mittal, Mr. Siddhant Chamola
and Ms. Devyani Nath, Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TALWANT SINGH
JUDGMENT
TALWANT SINGH, J. (via Video Conferencing)
This appeal has been taken-up for hearing by way of Video-
Conferencing on account of COVID-19.
1. Present appeal has been filed by five appellants, who were
defendants in the suit filed by the present respondents before Ld.
Single Judge. The appellants have challenged order dated 26th May
2020 passed by Ld. Single Judge in IA number 3904/2020. The
operative portion of the order dated 26th May 2020 is reproduced here
under:
"9. Till the next date, the defendants are restrained
from selling or in any manner dealing with the
product comprising the compound
DAPAGLIFLOZIN either manufactured by
NATCO Pharma Ltd. or any other entity under the
brand DAPNAT or any brand or product that
infringes Patent Nos. IN205147 or IN 235625."
2. The learned counsel for the respondents are appearing through
videoconferencing on advance notice of the appeal.
3. Notice. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents accept
notice on behalf of the respondents.
4. The appeal has been taken up for hearing with the consent of
both the parties. Part arguments have been heard on behalf of the
appellants. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants has
brought to the notice of this court para number 10 and 12 of the
impugned order and has submitted that the submissions made therein
on behalf of NATCO Pharma Ltd. were recorded without consulting
the said company and the company in question as well as the learned
senior advocate appearing for the said company had stated so in the
communications addressed to the counsel appearing for the appellants
in the present matter.
5. In our view, if the contention of the learned counsel for the
present appellants, who were defendants before the learned single
judge as well as the contention of NATCO Pharma Ltd., is that the
submissions made on behalf of that company were made without any
instructions, in that eventuality NATCO Pharma Ltd. as well as the
learned senior advocate appearing for defendants in this case before
the learned single judge are at liberty to move an appropriate
application bringing this to the notice of the concerned court within 3
working days and the respondents herein are at liberty to file reply to
the said application and the application will be taken up for hearing on
the next date of hearing fixed before the Ld. Single Judge on 1 stJuly
2020.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that he
had already filed the written statement as well as the reply to the
interim application moved by the plaintiffs before the Ld. Single
Judge and this fact has been recorded in Para 4 of the impugned order.
7. It has been further submitted that the contentions raised by the
present appellants were reproduced in para numbers 5 and 6 of the
impugned order but instead of dealing with the said contentions in
detail, Ld. Single Judge has passed the order of injunction as extracted
in para number 1 above against the present appellants.
8. Counsel for the parties, after some arguments, agree that the
best course available at this stage is that the interim application filed
by the plaintiffs before the Ld. Single Judge can be taken up for
hearing on the next date of hearing itself. Both the learned counsel
also agree to put a limit on the time required by them to address
arguments on the interim application. It seems that both the parties are
interested in expeditious disposal of the interim application.
9. In view of the above, it is appropriate to pass following
directions in the present appeal:
"A. The parties shall complete the pleadings in the main suit,
counter-claim as well as on the interim applications before the
Ld. Single Judge before the next date of hearing.
B. The Ld. Single Judge is requested to start hearing the
arguments on the interim application from the next date itself
and no unnecessary adjournments may be given.
C. Learned senior counsel appearing for the plaintiffs has
submitted that he needs approximately 2 hours to submit his
arguments and one more hour after the arguments on behalf of
defendants for rebuttal.
D. Learned counsel appearing for the defendants has submitted
that he needs approximately 2 hours to make his submissions.
E. It is expected that the learned counsel appearing for the
parties shall adhere to the time limits as prescribed above.
F. Ld. Single Judge may then decide the interim application/
applications as expeditiously as possible."
10. The appeal is disposed of in above terms. No order as to costs.
11. A copy of this judgment be uploaded on the website of this
Court.
TALWANT SINGH
(JUDGE)
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL
(JUDGE)
JUNE 10, 2020
dn/as
