Delhi High Court
Dr Reddys Laboratories Limited ... vs Alpha Sciences Pte Limited on 7 October, 2022
$~11
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 07th October, 2022
+ O.M.P.(I)(COMM.) 190/2022
DR REDDYS LABORATORIES LIMITED
THROUGH AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY
MR GOPALA KRISHNA GANGAVELLI ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Neelima Tripathi, Senior
Advocate with Mr. Apoorv P.
Tripathi, Ms. Soumya Sharma
& Ms. Anjali Kaushik,
Advocates. [M:-9910523322].
versus
ALPHA SCIENCES PTE LIMITED ..... Respondent
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN
PRATEEK JALAN, J. (ORAL)
%
1. The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 9 of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [hereinafter, "the Act"], for
interim measures of protection in anticipation of arbitral proceedings
between the parties under an agreement dated 06.05.2016 entitled
"Supply Agreement" [hereinafter, "the Supply Agreement"]. The
Supply Agreement was extended twice, by way of amendment
agreements dated 24.05.2019 and 14.05.2020.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:SHITU
NAGPAL
Signing Date:11.10.2022
2. Although several reliefs have been claimed in the petition, Ms.
Neelima Tripathi, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, presses
the petition only as far as prayer "a" is concerned, which reads as
follows:
"a. Pass an order/ mandatory injunction directing the
Respondent to issue a no-objection certificate or consent
letter for appointment of a new distributor for
pharmaceutical products of the Petitioner in Myanmar;"
3. Notice was issued in the petition on 03.06.2022, at which stage,
Ms. Tripathi did not press for ex parte ad interim relief. Learned
counsel for the petitioner has filed an affidavit of service dated
01.09.2022, which shows that service has been effected upon the
respondent by e-mail, courier and Speed Post. E-mail service was
effected on 09.06.2022 from the e-mail address of learned counsel for
the petitioner to the email address - [email protected],
which is the e-mail address from which correspondence was addressed
to the petitioner on behalf of the respondent1. Learned counsel for the
petitioner has affirmed that the e-mail has not bounced back. Speed
Post delivery and courier delivery were effected upon the respondent
on 14.06.2022 and 24.06.2022, respectively, at the address mentioned
in Clause 16 of the Supply Agreement for service of notice. Printouts
of the tracking reports have also been placed on record. Pursuant to
the directions of this Court vide order dated 25.07.2022, by an e-mail
communication dated 01.08.2022, learned counsel for the petitioner
A copy of one such e-mail dated 09.03.2022 is placed on record as part of the petitioner's list of
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:SHITU
NAGPAL
Signing Date:11.10.2022
also informed the respondent of the next date of hearing i.e.
06.09.2022.
4. Despite all these efforts towards service of notice, the
respondent has not entered appearance. As sufficient time has lapsed
to enable the respondent to enter appearance, the petition is taken up
for hearing in its absence.
5. The petitioner is a manufacturer of pharmaceutical products.
The respondent is a company incorporated in Republic of Singapore.
By way of the Supply Agreement, the respondent was appointed as the
petitioner's distributor for the territory of Myanmar. The respondent
had nominated a consignee in the territory of Myanmar namely M/s
Biosy's Company Limited [hereinafter, "Biosy's"]. The original term
of the Supply Agreement was three years, after which it was extended
by way of amendment agreements dated 24.05.2019 and 14.05.2020
for one year each. The Supply Agreement has thus expired by efflux
of time on 05.05.2021.
6. The clauses of the Supply Agreement, insofar as they are
relevant for the purposes of the present petition, are as follows:-
"6. REGULATORY MATTERS
xxxx xxxx xxxx
6.3 It is the responsibility of DISTRIBUTOR to inform
DR.REDDY'S about the laws, regulation of the Territory
applicable to the Products including Patents, imports,
regulations, labelling, technical specifications, safety
requirements, etc.
xxxx xxxx xxxx
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:SHITU
NAGPAL
Signing Date:11.10.2022
7. COMPLIANCE
7.1 DISTRIBUTOR shall during the term of this
Agreement comply with all legal and regulatory
requirements relevant to the promotion, supply and sale
of medicines within the Territory. DISTRIBUTOR ___
shall also comply with all the relevant laws including but
not limited to relevant anti-corruption, anti-competition
laws applicable in the Territory.
xxxx xxxx xxxx
13. TERM AND TERMINATION
13.1 This Agreement shall come into force on the
Commencement Date and, unless terminated earlier
pursuant to clause 13.2 below, shall continue in full force
for each Product for a normal term of three (3) years
from the date of execution of this Agreement and may be
renewed for further period upon mutual agreement of the
parties in writing.
xxxx xxxx xxxx
14. CONSEQUENCES OF TERMINATION
14.1 Upon termination of this Agreement for a Product
for any reason:
14.1.1 DISTRIBUTOR may sell stocks for such Product
for which it has accepted orders from customers prior to
the date or termination, and to this extent, the provisions
of this Agreement shall continue in full force and effect;
and for the balance stocks with DISTRIBUTOR, both the
parties may mutually discuss on the liquidation of the
same. In the absence of natural agreement,
DISTRIBUTOR shall return the stocks to DR.REDDY'S or
its nominated agent at the price at Supply Price plus
handling plus taxes if any.
14.1.2 The parties shall not be relieved from any liability,
which at the term of such termination has already accrued
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:SHITU
NAGPAL
Signing Date:11.10.2022
to the other party, or which is attributable to a period
prior to such termination.
14.1.3 DISTRIBUTOR shall return the Product
Registration and all the Confidential Information shared
by DR. REDDY'S within a period of ten (10) days from the
date of termination.
14.1.4 DISTRIBUTOR shall issue no objection certificate/
consent letter if required for appointing a new Distributor
on termination of the Agreement.
xxxx xxxx xxxx
18. LAW
18.1 This Agreement and the obligations of the parties
shall be governed by and construed in accordance with
the laws of India.
18.2 All disputes or differences between parties hereto,
including any dispute or difference regarding
interpretation of any term or provision, rights or
obligations between the parties arising out of or in
connection with this agreement shall be finally settled by
arbitration in accordance with the Singapore
International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) which are
deemed to be incorporated by reference into this clause
and the arbitral ruling, decision or judgment of the
arbitral tribunal in India shall be final and binding on
both Parties, and:
a) All proceedings shall be conducted in English and a
daily transcript in English shall be prepared;
b) The disputing Parties shall mutually appoint a sole
arbitrator. In the event the disputing Parties are unable to
agree on a single arbitrator within a period of 15 (fifteen)
days from the date of service of Notice of Dispute, the
Dispute shall be referred to an arbitral panel comprising
of three (3) arbitrators, one each to be appointed by the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:SHITU
NAGPAL
Signing Date:11.10.2022
disputing parties, and the third to be appointed by the two
arbitrators so appointed, who shall serve as Chairman of
the Arbitration Panel; and
c) The venue of arbitration shall be in India."
7. A list of pharmaceutical products supplied by the petitioner in
the territory of Myanmar through the distributorship of the respondent
has been annexed as Annexure 1 to the Agreement dated 14.05.2020.
These include drugs for the treatment of cholesterol and heart disease
(Rozat), high blood pressure (Telsartan), pain relief (Ketorol
Injection), blood clots (Fondaparinux), cancer (Reditux), kidney
disease (Cresp), and diseases of the stomach and oesophagus (Omez
DSR).
8. Ms. Tripathi submits that these drugs were supplied in the
territory of Myanmar through the distributorship of the respondent
under the Supply Agreement. For this purpose, various regulatory
approvals were taken by the respondent and Biosy's, including an
exporter approval (in favour of the petitioner), Distributor Drug
Importation Approval Certificate in the name of Biosy's, and Product
Drug Importation Approval Certificate for each of the products to be
supplied.
9. After the lapse of the Supply Agreement on 05.05.2021, the
petitioner claims to have addressed several communications to the
respondent calling upon it to sign a new agreement. Various
communications to this effect, including e-mails dated 30.08.2021,
04.09.2021, 14.09.2021, 16.09.2021, 22.10.2021, 03.11.2021,
07.12.2021, 17.01.2022, 02.02.2022, 15.03.2022 and 18.03.2022 have
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:SHITU
NAGPAL
Signing Date:11.10.2022
been placed on record2. It is evident therefrom that the petitioner has
repeatedly called upon the respondent to extend the term of the Supply
Agreement and also alerted the respondent to the fact that it would not
be able to honour further purchase orders in the absence of an
extended agreement. In the e-mail dated 07.12.2021, it is stated that
the petitioner's representatives have sought to contact the respondent's
representatives by various methods and also to arrange an in-person
meeting at the respondent's office. The respondent has also been
informed that many of the petitioner's products are already out of
stock and other products are likely to run out shortly which would
cause inconvenience to patients in the territory of Myanmar. In the e-
mail dated 17.01.2022, it is also stated that the petitioner's
representatives attempted to visit the respondent's representatives but
were unable to meet her.
10. In the course of this correspondence, an e-mail dated
09.03.2022 was addressed by the representative of the respondent to
the petitioner. By the said e-mail, the respondent raised various issues
upon which it sought to negotiate with the petitioner. However, the
respondent has not disputed the petitioner's assertion that the Supply
Agreement had expired in May, 2021 and no extension has yet been
signed.
11. After receipt of the aforesaid e-mail, the petitioner has
addressed several further e-mails to the respondent, but no response
thereto has been received.
Document No.5 of the petitioner's list of documents
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:SHITU
NAGPAL
Signing Date:11.10.2022
12. In these circumstances, the petitioner issued a notice dated
22.03.2022 to the respondent noting that the Agreements have expired
by efflux of time and calling upon the respondent to issue a No
Objection Certificate [hereinafter, "NOC"] for the petitioner's
appointment of a new distributor. The said communication also failed
to elicit a response. It is in these circumstances, that the petitioner has
filed the present petition under Section 9 of the Act.
13. Ms. Tripathi states that during the pendency of this petition, the
petitioner has also invoked the arbitration clause by a letter dated
05.09.2022, addressed to the respondent, and the petitioner proposes
to take steps for constitution of the arbitral tribunal in accordance with
law.
14. It is clear from the arbitration clause contained in Clause 18 of
the Supply Agreement that all disputes will be resolved and settled by
arbitration, and that the venue of the arbitration shall be India. The
respondent has not entered appearance to dispute the jurisdiction of
this Court at this stage. In support of jurisdiction of this Court, Ms.
Tripathi has placed on record copies of airway bills, purchase invoices
and packaging list3 showing that the products have been dispatched to
Biosy's from New Delhi Airport, India, which is within the
jurisdiction of this Court. A statement to this effect has also been
made in the petition4.
Document Nos. 9, 10 and 11 of the petitioner's list of documents
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:SHITU
NAGPAL
Signing Date:11.10.2022
15. Ms. Tripathi also relies upon an opinion of local counsel from
Myanmar, dated 22.02.20225 to demonstrate that a NOC is required
from the respondent, prior to the petitioner being able to apply for
issuance of regulatory approvals in favour of any new distributors.
16. In these circumstances, Ms. Tripathi submits that there is a
strong prima facie case for grant of the injunction sought and balance
of convenience is also in favour of the petitioner herein.
17. As the interim injunction sought in the present case is of a
mandatory nature, Ms. Tripathi has placed on record several
judgments to support the case that a mandatory injunction in
furtherance of the terms of an agreement can be permitted in certain
facts and circumstances. In Dorab Cawasji Warden vs. Coomi Sorab
Warden and Others6, the Court held as follows:-
"16. The relief of interlocutory mandatory injunctions
are thus granted generally to preserve or restore the
status quo of the last non-contested status which
preceded the pending controversy until the final hearing
when full relief may be granted or to compel the
undoing of those acts that have been illegally done or
the restoration of that which was wrongfully taken from
the party complaining. But since the granting of such an
injunction to a party who fails or would fail to establish
his right at the trial may cause great injustice or
irreparable harm to the party against whom it was
granted or alternatively not granting of it to a party who
succeeds or would succeed may equally cause great
injustice or irreparable harm, courts have evolved certain
guidelines. Generally stated these guidelines are:
Document No. 12 of the petitioner's list of documents
(1990) 2 SCC 117
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:SHITU
NAGPAL
Signing Date:11.10.2022
(1) The plaintiff has a strong case for trial. That is, it
shall be of a higher standard than a prima facie case that
is normally required for a prohibitory injunction.
(2) It is necessary to prevent irreparable or serious
injury which normally cannot be compensated in terms of
money.
(3) The balance of convenience is in favour of the one
seeking such relief."7
18. The view taken by the Division Bench of this Court in Ajay
Singh vs. Kal Airways Private Limited and Ors.8 was as follows:-
"26. Though apparently, there seem to be two divergent
strands of thought, in judicial thinking, this court is of the
opinion that the matter is one of the weight to be given to
the materials on record, a fact dependent exercise, rather
than of principle. That Section 9 grants wide powers to
the courts in fashioning an appropriate interim order, is
apparent from its text. Nevertheless, what the authorities
stress is that the exercise of such power should be
principled, premised on some known guidelines -
therefore, the analogy of Orders 38 and 39. Equally, the
court should not find itself unduly bound by the text of
those provisions rather it is to follow the underlying
principles. In this regard, the observations of Lord
Hoffman in Films Rover International Ltd. v. Cannon
Film Sales Ltd.(1986) 3 All ER 772 are fitting:
"But I think it is important in this area to
distinguish between fundamental principles and
what are sometimes described as 'guidelines', i.e.
useful generalisations about the way to deal with
the normal run of cases falling within a particular
category. The principal dilemma about the grant of
interlocutory injunctions, whether prohibitory or
Emphasis supplied.
FAO(OS) (COMM) 61/2016 & connected matter, decided on 03.07.2017
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:SHITU
NAGPAL
Signing Date:11.10.2022
mandatory, is that there is by definition a risk that
the court may make the 'wrong' decision, in the
sense of granting an injunction to a party who fails
to establish his right at the trial (or would fail if
there was a trial) or alternatively, in failing to
grant an injunction to a party who succeeds (or
would succeed) at trial. A fundamental principle is
therefore that the court should take whichever
course appears to carry the lower risk of injustice
if it should turn out to have been 'wrong' in the
sense I have described. The guidelines for the
grant of both kinds of interlocutory injunctions
are derived from this principle."
27. It was observed later, in the same judgment that:
"The question of substance is whether the granting of
the injunction would carry that higher risk of injustice
which is normally associated with the grant of a
mandatory injunction. The second point is that in cases
in which there can be no dispute about the use of the term
'mandatory' to describe the injunction, the same question
of substance will determine whether the case is 'normal'
and therefore within the guideline or 'exceptional' and
therefore requiring special treatment. If it appears to the
court that, exceptionally, the case is one in which
withholding a mandatory interlocutory injunction would
in fact carry a greater risk of injustice than granting it
even though the court does not feel a 'high degree of
assurance' about the plaintiff's chances of establishing
his right, there cannot be any rational basis for
withholding the injunction." "9
Against the aforesaid judgment of the Division Bench of this Court,
the Supreme Court declined special leave to appeal.10
Emphasis supplied.
Order dated 28.07.2017 in SLP (C) 18558/2017
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:SHITU
NAGPAL
Signing Date:11.10.2022
19. Ajay Singh11 was followed in another judgment of this Court in
Jetpur Somnath Tollways Limited vs. National Highways Authority of
India12 wherein, the Coordinate Bench of this Court in petitions under
Section 9 of the Act, granted interim relief to enforce the terms of an
agreement. The aforesaid view was upheld by the Division Bench13.
On the scope of Section 9 of the Act, the Division Bench held as
follows:-
"35. On the question of exercise of power under Section
9 of the A&C Act, we have already referred to Clauses
37.3.1 of the Concessionaire Agreement which is an
express and mandatory provision when said agreement is
terminated on account of concessionaire fault. We have
also referred to Clauses 3.2 and 4.2 of the tripartite
Escrow Agreement which refers to termination payment.
To accept the plea of NHAI that section 9 of the A&C Act
cannot be invoked, would negate and obliterate the
aforesaid Clauses and their effect. In the aforesaid
circumstances the ratio of decision of the Division Bench
of this Court in Value Source Mercantile Limited Vs. Span
Mechnotronix Limited (2014) 143 DRJ 505, is apposite, if
not definite and conclusive. Referring to Section 9 of the
A&C Act, this decision emphasized that the said
provision uses the expression 'interim measure of
protection' as distinct from the expression 'temporary
injunction' used in Rules 1 and 2 of Order XXXIX of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Interim injunction is one
of the measures or orders prescribed in Clause (d) to
Section 9 (ii) of the A&C Act, albeit a party to the
arbitration agreement is entitled to apply for and seek
'interim measure of protection'. Clause (e) to Section 9(ii)
is a residuary power of the court to issue or direct other
Supra (note 8)
(2017) 4 Arb LR 391
Judgment dated 27.10.2017 in FAO (OS)(COMM)s 165-166/2017
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:SHITU
NAGPAL
Signing Date:11.10.2022
"interim measures of protection". Thus, the court has the
power to issue or direct other interim measures of
protection as may appear to the court to be just and
convenient. Section 9 encompass the power of making
orders as the Civil Court has for the purpose of, and in
relation to any proceedings before it. This decision refers
to Rule 10 of Order XXXIX of the aforesaid Code which
empowers the Court to direct to deposit payment of the
admitted amount. Therefore the court exercising power
under Section 9 of the A&C Act has the same power as
that of a civil court during pendency of the suit."14
20. The aforesaid judgment of the Division Bench of this Court was
carried in appeal before the Supreme Court15, which was disposed of
by an order dated 05.01.2018. The said order reads as follows:-
"Heard Mr. Tushar Mehta, learned Additional Solicitor
General along with Ms. Gunjan Sinha Jain, learned
counsel for the SLP(C)No.35087/17 petitioner; Mr. Kapil
Sibal, learned senior counsel and Mr. Gourab Banerji,
learned senior counsel for the respective respondent-
caveators.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are
inclined to issue the following directions : (i) The finding
by the High Court with regard to encashment of bank
guarantee is affirmed.
(ii) The petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs.348.604 crores
within a span of six weeks from today.
(iii) If the bank seeks arbitration and the petitioner seeks
arbitration against the bank, the same shall be arbitrated
upon. (iv) The amount shall be kept in the Escrow
Account as directed by the High Court.
Emphasis supplied.
SLP (C) No. 36692/2017 [National Highway Authority of India vs. Jetpur Somnath Tollways
Limited]
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:SHITU
NAGPAL
Signing Date:11.10.2022
(v) Any finding recorded by the learned Single Judge or
the Division Bench on the merits of the claim shall not be
relied upon in the arbitration proceedings. The Special
Leave Petitions are disposed of accordingly."
21. On the question of the scope of power under Section 9 of the
Act, and applicability of the principles applicable under the Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908 [hereinafter, "CPC"], the Supreme Court has
recently in Essar House Private Limited vs. Arcellor Mittal Nippon
Steel India Limited16, expressly approved the judgment of this Court in
Ajay Singh17. It is further held in the said judgment as follows:-
"39. In deciding a petition under Section 9 of the
Arbitration Act, the Court cannot ignore the basic
principles of the CPC. At the same time, the power Court
to grant relief is not curtailed by the rigours of every
procedural provision in the CPC. In exercise of its powers
to grant interim relief under Section 9 of the Arbitration
Act, the Court is not strictly bound by the provisions of
the CPC.
40. While it is true that the power under Section 9 of the
Arbitration Act should not ordinarily be exercised
ignoring the basic principles of procedural law as laid
down in the CPC, the technicalities of CPC cannot
prevent the Court from securing the ends of justice. It is
well settled that procedural safeguards, meant to advance
the cause of justice cannot be interpreted in such manner,
as would defeat justice.
xxxx xxxx xxxx
42. As argued by Mr. Kaul, besides the specific power of
securing the amount in dispute, the Courts have been
empowered to pass any interim measure of protection,
Civil Appeal arising out of SLP(Civil) No. 3187/2021, decided on 14.09.2022
Supra (note 8)
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:SHITU
NAGPAL
Signing Date:11.10.2022
keeping in view the purpose of the proceedings before it.
The said provision confers a residuary power on the Court
to pass such other interim measures of protection as may
appear to be just and convenient.
xxxx xxxx xxxx
48. Section 9 of the Arbitration Act confers wide power on
the Court to pass orders securing the amount in dispute in
arbitration, whether before the commencement of the
arbitral proceedings, during the arbitral proceedings or at
any time after making of the arbitral award, but before its
enforcement in accordance with Section 36 of the
Arbitration Act. All that the Court is required to see is,
whether the applicant for interim measure has a good
prima facie case, whether the balance of convenience is in
favour of interim relief as prayed for being granted and
whether the applicant has approached the court with
reasonable expedition.
49. If a strong prima facie case is made out and the
balance of convenience is in favour of interim relief
being granted, the Court exercising power under Section
9 of the Arbitration Act should not withhold relief on the
mere technicality of absence of averments, incorporating
the grounds for attachment before judgment under Order
38 Rule 5 of the CPC.
50. Proof of actual attempts to deal with, remove or
dispose of the property with a view to defeat or delay the
realisation of an impending Arbitral Award is not
imperative for grant of relief under Section 9 of the
Arbitration Act. A strong possibility of diminution of assets
would suffice. To assess the balance of convenience, the
Court is required to examine and weigh the consequences
of refusal of interim relief to the applicant for interim
relief in case of success in the proceedings, against the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:SHITU
NAGPAL
Signing Date:11.10.2022
consequence of grant of the interim relief to the opponent
in case the proceedings should ultimately fail."18
22. Applying these principles, I am satisfied that the grant of
interim relief sought in this petition is merited in the facts and
circumstances of the case. It is evident from the Agreements that the
respondent's distributorship has expired by efflux of time on
05.05.2021. Despite more than one year having passed since and
considerable correspondence calling upon the respondent to extend the
term of the Supply Agreement, it has failed to do so. The only
correspondence addressed by the respondent (by an e-mail dated
09.03.2022) does not dispute the factual position that the
distributorship agreement in its favour has expired. Upon termination
of the Supply Agreement for any reason, Clause 14.1.4 requires the
respondent to issue a NOC/ consent letter, if required for appointing a
new distributor. The respondent has also failed to do so despite the
request of the petitioner. The respondent's complete inaction
jeopardises not only the petitioner's business in Myanmar, but also the
availability of vital pharmaceutical products to the residents of
Myanmar.
23. In these circumstances, I am of the view that the petitioner has
made out a strong case for trial as required by the judgment in Dorab
Cawasji Warden19. The case demonstrates the exceptional
circumstances which require an order to be passed in mandatory
terms. The petitioner's ability able to serve the territory of Myanmar
Emphasis supplied.
Supra (note 6)
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:SHITU
NAGPAL
Signing Date:11.10.2022
by supply of its pharmaceutical products through the respondent, has
effectively been altered by the respondent's failure to issue the NOC
in terms of the Agreements, despite its lapse by efflux of time, which
the petitioner now seeks to restore.
24. Seen from the perspective laid down by the Division Bench in
Ajay Singh20 also, the petitioner's claims are merited. The situation
which the respondent has brought to bear today, prima facie disentitles
the petitioner to supply its products in Myanmar causing significant
loss of business and reputation to the petitioner and also depriving
patients in Myanmar from the use of those products. The public
interest in ensuring continued supply of pharmaceutical products is
also a significant factor to determine the question of irretrievable
prejudice and balance of convenience. I am of the view that the refusal
of an injunction in these circumstances carries a greater risk of
irretrievable prejudice to the petitioner than grant of the injunction
would occasion to the respondent. I am further fortified by the
aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court in Essar House21 which
eschews the strict technicalities of the procedural law when
considering a petition under Section 9 of the Act and enjoins the Court
to grant relief where required in the interest of justice.
25. For the aforesaid reasons, the petition is disposed of with a
direction upon the respondent to issue a NOC or a consent letter, for
the appointment of a new distributor for pharmaceutical products of the
petitioner in the territory of Myanmar. The respondent is directed to do
Supra (note 8)
Supra (note 16)
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:SHITU
NAGPAL
Signing Date:11.10.2022
so within four weeks after service of a copy of this order upon it.
However, the petitioner is directed to maintain separate accounts of any
business transacted by it in the territory of Myanmar, so that the
respondent may be suitably compensated in the arbitral proceedings, if
found so entitled.
26. The petitioner is directed to take expeditious steps for
constitution of the arbitral tribunal. It will be open to the petitioner to
seek the other reliefs sought in the present petition by way of interim
relief before the arbitral tribunal. In the event the respondent seeks any
modification, variation or vacation of the order passed herein, it is also
entitled to take steps in accordance with law for this purpose.
27. The petition is disposed of in the above terms. It is made clear
that the observations contained in this order are only for the purpose of
disposal of the present petition and will not prejudice the parties in the
final adjudication of the arbitral proceedings.
PRATEEK JALAN, J
OCTOBER 07, 2022
'Bhupi'/
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:SHITU
NAGPAL
Signing Date:11.10.2022
