NOVARTIS AG Vs. ADARSH PHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In all the original applications an ex parte order of injunction was granted by this Court on 20/1/2004. To vacate that ex parte order in each suit, the aggrieved party has filed an application. This application to vacate the injunction stands accompanied by two applications having successive numbers, namely one to stay the operation of the "Exclusive Marketing Rights", hereinafter for brevity referred to as "EMR" and the other, to implead the authority, which granted the "EMR", as a party to the suit. Of course, it must be noticed that in the C.S. No. 5/2004 and C.S. No. 6/2004, there is no such application to stay the operation of the "EMR" and to implead the authority, which issued the said "EMR", as a party to the suit. The authority, which issued the "EMR", had filed a counter stating that "EMR" was justifiably granted. In the context of this Court deciding to hear the original applications, where an ex parte order of injunction was granted and the applications filed to vacate the interim order. Mr. Lakshmi Kumaran learned counsel appearing for the defendants in the last three suits, where applications were filed to stay the operation of the "EMR" and to implead the authority, which issued the "EMR", as a party to the suit, submitted on instructions from his clients, that he is not interested in prosecuting all those applications. Accordingly A. Nos. 842 and 843/2004 in C.S. No. 7/2004 and A. Nos. 845 & 846/2004 in C.S. No. 8/2004 and A. Nos. 848 & 849/2004 in C.S. No. 9/2004 stand dismissed as not pressed. This means, this Court is now called upon to decide as to whether any case is made out to continue the order of interim injunction granted or should it be vacated? Mr. P. Chidambaram learned senior counsel and Mr. Habibullah Badsha learned senior counsel appeared for the plaintiffs in the suit and in the applications for injunction. Mr. Arvind P. Datar learned senior counsel appeared for the aggrieved party in C.S. Nos. 5 & 6/2004 while Mr. V. Lakshmi Kumaran learned counsel appeared for the aggrieved party in C.S. Nos. 7 to 9/2004.

(2.) Taking into account the stage at which this case is poised for a decision (interlocutory stage), I am of the opinion that it is enough if the sum and substance of the case of the respective parties are set out hereunder. In fact, pleading is complete in C.S. Nos. 7 to 9 of 2004 i.e., the written statement is also filed. To set out the entire pleadings at length (the pleadings at the interlocutory stage runs to several pages) at this stage would be a futile exercise, since it forms parts of the record and the court can always refer to it. The sum and substance of the plaintiff's case at this interlocutory stage is as follows:

(3.) The defendants' case is summarised as hereunder: