Madras High Court
Cipla Limited vs Sun Pharmaceutical Industries on 15 December, 2021
OSA(CAD)Nos.135 to 140
of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 15.12.2021
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI,
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.AUDIKESAVALU
Original Side Appeal (CAD) Nos.135 to 140 of 2021
and CMP.Nos.20488, 20496, 20498 & 20500 to 20502 of 2021
Cipla Limited .. Appellant in
all the appeals
Vs
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries
Ltd., Chennai-35 .. Respondent in
all the appeals
Prayer : APPEALS under Order XXXVI Rule 1 of the Original Side
Rules read with Clause 15 of the Madras High Court Letters Patent
and Section 13(1-A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 against the
common order dated 07.10.2021 in A.Nos.3501 to 3503 of 2021 and
OA.Nos.281 to 283 of 2021 in C.S.(Comm.Div.) No.176 of 2021.
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
of 2021
For Appellant : Mr.P.S.Raman, Senior
Counsel appearing for
Mr.K.Premchandar
For Respondent Mr.Satish Parasaran, Senior
Counsel appearing for
Mr.Rajesh Ramanathan
COMMON JUDGMENT
(Judgment was delivered by the Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice)
We have heard the respective learned Senior Counsel
appearing for both parties.
2. The challenge made is to the common order dated
07.10.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby, in
paragraph 7, with regard to use of the words 'RESPULES, BUDEFEX
and DUOZ', it was held that the claim of the plaintiff - appellant
herein to use the same exclusively was an issue, which could be
decided only after trial and that there should be no restraint order.
It was also held in paragraph 8 that all the other interim orders
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
of 2021
passed restraining the defendant - respondent herein stood
modified.
3. The case has a chequered history with reference to the suit
filed by the appellant herein - plaintiff. An ad-interim injunction was
granted by the learned Single Judge, which was challenged by the
defendant - non appellant, by filing OSA(CAD) Nos.8 to 13 of 2021.
By a common judgment dated 06.7.2021, the First Bench of this
Court passed an order with reference to the arguments made by the
parties. After the said common judgment, the matter was to be
reconsidered not only with respect to continuance or vacation of the
ad-interim order, but also on larger injunction.
4. It is not in dispute by either parties that the issue with
respect to larger injunction was not considered by the learned Single
Judge specifically in reference to use of small letters and also the
word 'RESPULES'. Both the parties agree for remanding the matters
for a fresh consideration in the light of the said common judgment
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
of 2021
of the First Bench and more particularly with reference to use of the
word 'RESPULES' and small letters.
5. In the light of the above, the impugned common order
dated 07.10.2021 is set aside and the matters are remanded to the
learned Single Judge for fresh consideration. The parties before this
Court shall refer to the said common judgment of the First Bench for
necessary consideration not only with respect to continuance or
vacation of the ad-interim order, but also to consider the matter for
grant of larger injunction or its refusal.
6. There is one more issue regarding colour scheme. The
appellant herein has accepted change to colour scheme. This is
recorded. To that extent, the issue stands concluded and it is made
clear that it shall not be agitated by either parties before the learned
Single Judge.
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
of 2021
7. With the above observations, the original side appeals are
disposed of. Consequently, the connected CMPs are closed. There
will be no order as to costs.
(M.N.B., ACJ.) (P.D.A., J.)
15.12.2021
Index : Yes/No
RS
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
of 2021
M.N.BHANDARI, ACJ
AND
P.D.AUDIKESAVALU,J
RS
OSA.(CAD) Nos.135 to 140 of 2021
& CMP.Nos.20488, 20496, 20498
& 20500 to 20502 of 2021
15.12.2021
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
