LAWS(DLH)-2012-10-119

CIPLA LTD Vs. UNION OF INDIA

Decided On October 12, 2012
CIPLA LTD Appellant
V/S
UNION OF INDIA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appeal is at the instance of Cipla Ltd. challenging the order passed in CM No.17055/2012 (in W.P.(C) No.6361/2012) filed by the second and third respondents herein, i.e., Sugen Inc. and Pharmacia & Upjohn Company, ordering that the appellant herein shall not take any steps towards marketing its drugs till the next adjourned date, i.e., 15.10.2012. The second respondent in the appeal suffered an order at the hands of Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs of revocation of its patent. That order was questioned by the second and third respondents by filing the writ petition aforesaid, mainly on the ground that without furnishing the copies of recommendation of the Opposition Board, the same was relied upon by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs; even a request under Right to Information Act, 2005 for furnishing the copy of the said recommendation was denied; that refusal to furnishing the copy would be contrary to the provisions of Section 25 (3) and (4) of the Patents Act. Along with writ petition, an application for grant of stay was filed and the learned Single Judge vide order dated 05.10.2012 had ordered notice of the writ petition as well as application for stay, returnable on 15.10.2012. No interim stay of the order of Assistant Controller was granted.

(2.) THE second respondent came across a news report of 05.10.2012 as to an attempt made by the appellant herein to market the products in question. Hence, another application for stay was filed on 06.10.2012.

(3.) THIS order is questioned on the ground that on the application for stay along with writ petition, the learned Single Judge had not granted any interim order and only directed notice, when second application for stay with similar prayer was filed, the learned Single Judge entertained and granted the above order. Further, in the absence of any prayer for direction to the appellant herein not to take any steps for marketing its drugs, the learned Single Judge should not have granted such an order.