CODEXIS INC Vs. SHASUN CHEMICALS AND DRUGS LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first respondent is the original plaintiff in the suit, while the appellant is the first defendant. The original plaintiff is located in Chennai, while the appellant is located in USA, whereas the second respondent being the second defendant is located in Mumbai.

(2.) It is the case of the plaintiff in the suit that being one of the largest producers of Ibuprofen worldwide and one of the major producers of Ranitidine and Nizatidine, the plaintiff is exporting to countries across the world and has tied up with multinational companies, more specifically for developing and supplying the products to the United States market. In the course of the business, the plaintiff entered into an agreement with the first defendant/appellant on 09.05.2005 for technology transfer to manufacture Hydroxzynitrile, whereby the plaintiff was granted exclusive right to manufacture and supply Hydroxzynitrile to the appellant. There was exclusivity in the contract. The initial obligations are stated to have been performed by the original plaintiff by virtue of deposit of US Dollars Two Hundred and Fifty Thousands and thereafter, it was the obligation of the appellant to demonstrate the process of manufacturing of Hydroxynitrile to the plaintiff's facility by providing the initial specifications. It is the allegation of the original plaintiff that the appellant failed to do so. But on the other hand, vide notice dated 08.07.2008, the appellant terminated the agreement dated 09.05.2005 alleging that the original plaintiff had failed to achieve the "First Process Date". It is the case of the original plaintiff that since the appellant had not demonstrated the mode of manufacture of Hydroxynitrile in terms as provided for under the agreement, the occasion for the original plaintiff to achieve the First Process Date did not arise. Thereafter, some further letters were exchanged.

(3.) The original plaintiff alleges in the plaint that the deposit made of US Dollar Two Hundred and Fifty Thousands was not even refunded and thus, there could not be any termination of the agreement. The relief prayed for is permanent injunction against the appellant from acting in derogation of the agreement dated 09.05.2005 and against the second respondent, who sought to take the place of the original plaintiff from dealing with the appellant.