PFIZER ENTERPRISES SARL Vs. CIPLA LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN the Pfizer Appeal the Plaintiffs have assailed the Order dated 16/7/2008 of the learned Single Judge holding that the High Court of Delhi lacks territorial jurisdiction. The impugned Order returns the Plaint for filing in the appropriate court. The dispute centres upon the averments made in the Plaint and the response thereto contained in the Written Statement.

(2.) P. M. Diesels litigation has remarkable annals. For the present purposes the relevant pleadings are found in paragraph 30 of the Plaint wherein it has, inter alia, been asserted that "the goods of the parties bearing the impugned trade marks are also sold in the Union Territory of Delhi". The interim injunction had been declined on 10. 3. 1998 principally for the reason that the plaintiff/appellant had failed to establish the territorial jurisdiction of the courts in Delhi. In the Appeal the Division Bench set aside the Order and the lis was carried further to the Supreme Court. Their Lordships noted that one of the three contentions raised was that the Defendants were selling the offending goods in Delhi, and that the Delhi High Court did not advert to it. Indeed, the supreme Court remanded the matter to the Delhi High Court for it to answer this aspect of the dispute opining that questions of fact "required to be properly determined in case evidence is led by the parties". Eventually, the Defendant filed the application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC for short) for dismissal of the Suit which was allowed but after treating it under Order VII Rule 10 (return of the Plaint ). It is this Order dated 20/8/2008 which has been assailed before us.

(3.) THE respective pleadings in the Pfizer Enterprises action relevant for the present purposes are produced in juxtaposition:-Plaint written Statement