JAGDISH GANDHI Vs. SATISH B VAIDYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiffs seek a declaration to the effect that plaintiffs No. 1 is the inventor as well as owner of the formula submitted by defendant Nos. 1 and 2 to defendant Nos. 3 and 4 under Reference Code No. P. V. 150896 and the plaintiff No. 1 alone shall be entitled to all the benefits arising out of the said formula and that defendant Nos. 1 and 2 have no right of whatsoever nature to make use of the formula or the formula which is a sham variation or modification thereof or derivation therefrom.

(2.) THE plaintiff No. 1 claims to be Researcher in ancient Indian Science including Indology, Archaeology, Numismatics, Ayurveda etc. He claims to have studied Ayurveda in depth on his own for about three decades. Plaintiff No. 2 is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956. Defendant No. 1, according to the plaintiffs, made series of representations to the plaintiffs which misled the plaintiffs to enter into an agreement with defendant No. 1 on 15th August 1996. The basic idea behind the agreement or Memorandum of Agreement dated 15th August, 1996 between defendant No. 2 and the plaintiff was to join hands for commercial exploitation of the formula allegedly developed by the plaintiff. A detailed agreement was entered into on 16th August, 1996. In Clause 7 of the aforesaid agreement, a declaration was recorded to the effect that the plaintiff No. 1 is the original inventor of the formula in relation to which the aforesaid agreement has been entered into between the parties. Subsequently by an addendum dated 21st February, 1998, it was agreed that defendant No. 2 shall inform the plaintiffs of the progress of the evaluation which was to be conducted by defendant No. 3. It is the claim of the plaintiffs that defendant No. 1 had defrauded the plaintiffs by making a series of misrepresentations. Defendant No. 1, who is not a medical doctor, claimed to be in fact a medical doctor. He, in fact, is only a Pharmacologist. Defendant No. 1 by his misrepresentations, built an impregnable wall between plaintiff No. 1 and defendant No. 3 and thus there was no communication between plaintiff No. 1 and defendant No. 3. Defendant No. 1 misused the opportunity of non-communication between the plaintiff and defendant No. 3 to give an impression to defendant No. 3 that defendant No. 1 was in fact the inventor. In such circumstances the plaintiff No. 1 claims to have been defrauded of all the rights which would have accrued in his favour if the medicines prepared on the formula of the plaintiff No. 1 had been marketed in his name.

(3.) MR. Talsania, the learned Counsel appearing for the plaintiffs , has been at pains to point out that the recitals of the agreement would clearly show that defendant Nos. 1 and 2 had accepted plaintiffs No. 1 as the inventor of the formula. He submits that the reference throughout to the plaintiffs No. 1 in the agreement is as inventor whereas defendant No. 2 is only mentioned as a manufacturer. He further submits that the evaluation of the formula has been presented to defendant No. 3 under Code No. P. V. 150896. He submits that the figures 150896 clearly show that the evaluation was to be of the formula which mentioned in the agreement dated 15th August, 1996. He submits that the prefix of the letters P. V. is a misrepresentation by defendant No. 2 to subsequently make a claim that the formula actually belongs to Pharma Veda. He further submits that a perusal of the correspondence exchanged between the parties would clearly show that there was joint collaboration of plaintiff No. 1 and defendant Nos. 1 and 2. He submits that defendant Nos. 1 and 2 have now got greedy and have started manufacturing the medicines based on the formula of the plaintiff. In the affidavit in reply of defendant No. 1 it is stated that no cause of action has been disclosed by the plaintiffs. The agreements which are the basis of the plaint had been terminated by the plaintiffs themselves. The aforesaid agreements has been terminated by the defendants also. Thus, nothing really remains for the plaintiffs to base the claim on the aforesaid agreements. It is further stated that the plaintiffs are not makers of the other documents except the paper containing the first plaintiffs formula. In fact, it is claimed that the medicine titled as " P. V. 150896 "has been prepared on the basis of the first defendants independently developed formula. Further the first, second and third defendants are the makers of the three documents viz. poster presentation, reports of the tests/study conducted in respect of the medicine and third defendants report titled