Delhi High Court
Natco Pharma Limited vs Kudos Pharmaceuticals Limited & Ors. on 31 January, 2025
Author: Navin Chawla
Bench: Navin Chawla
$~3
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 31.01.2025
+ FAO(OS) (COMM) 43/2024
NATCO PHARMA LIMITED .....Appellant
Through: Mr. J. Sai Deepak, Sr. Adv.
with Mr. Mohit Goel, Mr.
Sidhant Goel, Mr. Deepankar
Mishra & Mr. Aditya Goel,
Advs.
versus
KUDOS PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED & ORS.
.....Respondents
Through: Mr. Pravin Anand, Ms. Vaishali
Mittal, Mr. Siddhant Chamola
& Mr. Gursimran Singh, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINDER KAUR
JUDGMENT
NAVIN CHAWLA, J (ORAL)
1. This appeal has been filed under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), read with Section 13(1) of the
Commercial Courts Act, 2015, and Section 10 of the Delhi High Court
Act, 1966, challenging the Judgment and Order dated 01.03.2024,
passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in I.A. No.907/2023
in CS (COMM) 29/2023, titled Kudos Pharmaceuticals Limited &
Ors. vs. NATCO Pharma Limited, by which the learned Single Judge
has granted an ad interim injunction restraining the appellant herein
from manufacturing and selling or in any manner dealing with
Olaparib, either under the brand name BRACANAT or under other
brand name, till the disposal of that suit.
2. The learned counsels for the parties agree that the subject patent
has since expired.
3. The learned counsel for the respondents has placed before us
the Order dated 02.08.2024, passed by the Supreme Court in SLP (C)
16237/2024 titled Novartis AG & Anr. vs. Natco Pharma Limited,
and the Order dated 15.10.2024, passed in the Review Petition (Civil)
(D No. 43943/2024) in the abovesaid SLP, by which the Supreme
Court observed that once the patent had expired, the judgment passed
by the learned Single Judge would cease to have any practical
relevance, and therefore, the Division Bench was not right in
proceeding to consider the appeal on merits, despite this fact having
been brought to its notice.
4. He also places reliance on the Order dated 06.10.2022, passed
by the Division Bench of this Court in FAO(OS) (COMM) 3/2020,
titled Indoco Remedies Ltd. v. Bristol Myers Squibb Holdings
Ireland Unlimited Company & Ors., which also has taken a similar
view.
5. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, however, submits
that the impugned order may cause prejudice to the appellant in the
trial of the suit and, even otherwise, may be cited in other proceedings.
6. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsels for
the parties, we are inclined to take the same view as expressed by the
Supreme Court and the Division Bench, referred hereinabove. Once
the patent has expired, we would not like to entertain the matter of
dispute in the present appeal. We, however, clarify that all
questions/issues shall remain open before the learned Single Judge
trying the suit, and the Impugned Judgment and Order shall not cause
prejudice to either of the parties in the trial or be read as expressing an
opinion on the merits of the dispute that is binding on the parties.
7. We further make it clear that disposal of this appeal shall not be
treated as an affirmation of the view expressed by the learned Single
Judge, and the question of law is left open.
8. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
NAVIN CHAWLA, J
SHALINDER KAUR, J
JANUARY 31, 2025/ab/sk
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
