Delhi High Court
H. Lundbeck A/S & Anr. vs Symed Labs Limited on 4 June, 2021
$~15 (original)
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS(COMM) 103/2021 & I.A.3178/2021, I.A. 3179/2021,
I.A.3180/2021, I.A.3181/2021, I.A.7368/2021, I.A.7369/2021
H. LUNDBECK A/S & ANR. ..... Plaintiff
Through: Mr. Pravin Anand, Ms. Prachi
Agarwal, Ms. Ridhie Bajaj, Ms. Mishthi
Dubey, Advs.
versus
SYMED LABS LIMITED ..... Defendant
Through: Mr. Prithvi Singh, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
O R D E R (O R A L)
% 04.06.2021
(Video-Conferencing)
I.A.7369/2021 (exemption)
1. Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions.
2. The application is disposed of.
I.A.7368/2021 (under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the CPC)
1. This is a joint application under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), for decreeing of the suit in
terms of the settlement arrived at between the parties. The terms of
settlement have been set out in para 2 of the application which is, for
ready reference, reproduced thus:
Signature Not Verified
By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI
Signing Date:11.06.2021
09:59:32
"2. That the Parties have amicably resolved the present
dispute regarding the Indian Patent No. 227963 filed against
the Defendant, on the basis of the following terms: -
i. The Defendant acknowledges the validity of the
Indian Patent No. 227963 during its subsistence.
ii. The Defendant undertakes that it will not be
commercially launching any product, including
but not limited to Vortioxetine and/or
Vortioxetine Hydrobromide violating the suit
patent IN 227963 (hereinafter, 'IN '963 patent')
during its subsistence.
iii. That the Defendant undertakes that it will
furnish a statement to the Plaintiffs and their
counsel, every 6 months, starting from the date
on which the settlement is recorded and until
the subsistence of the IN '963 patent, containing
the particulars and quantities of Vortioxetine
and/or Vortioxetine Hydrobromide supplied/ to
be supplied to third parties whether in the
domestic market or by export for R&D purposes
prescribed under S. 107A of The Patents Act,
1970 (hereinafter, 'Patents Act').
iv. That the Defendant undertakes that at all times
and until the subsistence of the IN'963 patent,
the Defendant will obtain declarations/ and
undertakings from all third-party customers that
such purchase/sale/export of Vortioxetine
and/or Vortioxetine Hydrobromide is for the
purposes prescribed under S. 107A of the
Patents Act and provide the same to the
Plaintiffs and their counsel.
v. That the Defendant further undertakes that,
going forward and till the subsistence of the
Indian Patent No. 227963, it will supply
Vortioxetine and/or Vortioxetine Hydrobromide
to only those entities which will provide them
Signature Not Verified
By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI
Signing Date:11.06.2021
09:59:32
the information on the quantities of
Vortioxetine and/or Vortioxetine Hydrobromide
required for regulatory purposes under the laws
of their country and/or any other country where
they are applying for regulatory approval,
whichever is applicable. That upon obtaining
the said information, the Defendant will provide
the same to the Plaintiffs and their counsel.
vi. That the Defendant further undertakes that if,
during the subsistence of the Indian Patent No.
227963, it is discovered that any of the parties
to whom the Defendant has supplied the product
Vortioxetine and/or Vortioxetine
Hydrobromide, are commercializing the
product, the Defendant will promptly inform the
Plaintiffs and their counsel along with requisite
proof of such commercialization. Further, the
Defendant would also stop the supply of the
product to such party immediately and provide a
confirmation thereof in writing to the Plaintiffs
and their counsel.
vii. That the Defendant further undertakes that all
communications to be made by the Defendant to
the Plaintiffs and their counsel, in writing, in
compliance of the aforesaid terms, would be at
their respective postal addresses or email
addresses, mentioned below:
Ottiliavej 9
2500 Valby
Denmark
E-mail address:- [email protected]
b) Lundbeck India Private Limited
HM Towers, I Floor,
#58, Brigade Road, Kodihalli BD,
Signature Not Verified
By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI
Signing Date:11.06.2021
09:59:32
HAL II Stage, Bangalore
Karnataka - 560025
India.
E-mail address:- [email protected]
c) Anand and Anand
First Channel Building,
Plot No. 17A, Film City, Sector 16A,
Noida-201301.
UP.
E-mail address: -
[email protected]
viii. That the Plaintiffs reserve their right to
seek revival of the instant law-suit if the
Plaintiffs find the Defendant herein has
made commercial use of the suit patent,
IN 227963.
ix. The present suit may be decreed in view
of the aforesaid terms and that the
Plaintiffs may be entitled to refund of
court fees under the Court Fees Act,
1870."
2. Learned Counsel for the parties are present.
3. In view thereof, nothing survives for adjudication in the present
suit. Accordingly, the suit is decreed in terms of settlement which
shall be treated as part of the judgment and order of decree.
4. The Registry is directed to draw up a decree sheet in terms
thereof.
Signature Not Verified
By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI
Signing Date:11.06.2021
09:59:32
5. Ms. Prachi Agarwal, learned Counsel for the plaintiff also seeks
refund of the entire court fees paid by the plaintiff.
6. She cites, in this context, Section 89 of the CPC and Section 16
of the Court Fees Act, 1870, as well as the judgment of this Court in
Munish Kalra v. Kiran Madan1. In the said decision, this Court has
taken a view, following earlier decisions, that, where the matter is
settled in accordance with the protocol prescribed in Order XXIII Rule
3 of the CPC, Section 16 of the Court Fees Act entitles the plaintiff to
complete refund of court fees.
7. Order XXIII Rule 3 of the CPC reads thus:
"3. Compromise of suit. - Where it is proved to the
satisfaction of the court that a suit has been adjusted wholly or
in part by any lawful agreement or compromise, in writing
and signed by the parties or where the defendant satisfied the
plaintiff in respect to the whole or any part of the subject-
matter of the suit, the Court shall order such agreement,
compromise or satisfaction to be recorded, and shall pass a
decree in accordance therewith so far as it relates to the
parties to the suit, whether or not the subject-matter of the
agreement, compromise or satisfaction is the same as the
subject-matter of the suit:
Provided that where it is alleged by one party and denied by
the other that an adjustment or satisfaction has been arrived
at, the Court shall decide the question; but no adjournment
shall be granted for the purpose of deciding the question,
unless the Court, for reasons to be recorded, thinks fit to grant
such adjournment.
Explanation - An agreement or compromise which is
void or voidable under the Indian Contract Act, 1872 (9 of
2019 SCC OnLine Del 8021
Signature Not Verified
By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI
Signing Date:11.06.2021
09:59:32
1872), shall not be deemed to be lawful within the meaning of
this rule."
8. The settlement in the present case is clearly in accordance with
Order XXIII Rule 3 and, therefore, prima facie entitles the plaintiff to
entire refund of the court fees.
9. Full refund of the court fees prayed by the plaintiff is also
justified for the reason that the suit stands settled even before notice is
issued in the matter, at the earliest possible stage.
10. In view thereof, the plaintiff is held to be entitled to refund of
the entire court fees deposited by it. I.A. 7368/2021 and the suit
alongwith pending applications stand disposed of accordingly.
C.HARI SHANKAR, J
JUNE 4, 2021/kr
Signature Not Verified
By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI
Signing Date:11.06.2021
09:59:32
