Bombay High Court
Piramal Enterprises Limited vs Chemiloids on 9 March, 2026
Author: Bharati Dangre
Bench: Bharati Dangre
2026:BHC-OS:6443-DB
1/7 9 COMAPL-5608-26.odt
Salgaonkar
MANDIRA MILIND
SALGAONKAR
Digitally signed by MANDIRA
MILIND SALGAONKAR
Date: 2026.03.12 18:28:09 +0530
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
COMMERCIAL APPEAL (L) NO.5608 OF 2026
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO.6085 OF 2026
Piramal Enterprises Limited .. Appellant
Versus
Chemiloids & Ors. .. Respondents
...
Mr.Vikram Nankani, Senior Advocate with Mr.Darshan Naik,
Ms.Reshma Shirke, Mr.Gopalkrishna Naik and Mr.Kamlakar
Dalvi i/b Prabodh Sanade for the Appellant.
Ms.Madhavi Nalluri (through VC) with Ms.Trupti Poojary i/b
Vivaka Partners for the Respondent.
CORAM: BHARATI DANGRE &
MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, JJ.
DATE : 09th MARCH, 2026
...
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER BHARATI DANGRE, J.) :-
1. The Appeal filed by the Appellant-Piramal Enterprises Limited calls in question the dismissal of the suit filed by the Appellant as Plaintiff, for want of prosecution, with cost quantified at Rs.5,00,000/- payable by the Plaintiff to each of the Defendants and on failure to deposit the cost, giving liberty to the Defendants to recover the said amount in execution proceedings.
2. We have heard learned senior counsel Mr.Vikram Nankani for the Appellant and Ms.Madhavi Nalluri, who has marked her appearance through VC for the Respondents.
::: Uploaded on - 12/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2026 22:11:09 :::2/7 9 COMAPL-5608-26.odt
3. The order dated 18/12/2025 dismissed the Commercial Suit filed by the Plaintiff, by recording that the counsel for the Plaintiff, who marked appearance on the previous date, had sought time to file the Plaintiff's affidavit of evidence and this request received opposition from the Defendants with reference to the order dated 22/09/2015, as on that date, the Plaintiff was directed to file its affidavit of evidence, affidavit of documents and compilation of documents, but Plaintiff chose to do nothing.
It was, therefore, contended that the Plaintiff is not serious in prosecuting the Suit and it shall be dismissed for want of prosecution.
It is in this background, the learned Single Judge, recorded thus :-
"3. I agree with Learned Counsel for the Defendants. The Plaintiff was to file its affidavit of evidence, affidavit of documents, and compilation of documents on or before 20th October 2015. Over a decade has elapsed since then and all that the Plaintiff has done is to change advocates and repeatedly seek adjournments. No steps have been taken by the Plaintiff to prosecute the Suit.
4. This is a Commercial Suit and is required to be proceeded with and decided expeditiously, in keeping with the object and mandate of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The Plaintiff's continued and unexplained default demonstrates a complete lack of diligence and a clear disinterest in prosecuting the Suit. Such conduct defeats the very purpose of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 which seeks to ensure timely and efficient adjudication of commercial disputes. Furthermore, the Defendant has had to incur legal expenses in defending a Suit which the Plaintiff is clearly not interested in prosecuting. The Suit therefore is plainly vexatious.
5. In these circumstances, the Plaintiff's conduct squarely attracts the provisions of Section 35 of the CPC, as amended by Section 16 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, which mandates that costs shall ordinarily follow the event and requires the Court to have regard, inter alia, to the conduct of the parties, including whether a party has caused delay or pursued the proceedings in a frivolous or vexatious manner. The prolonged and unjustified delay on the part of the Plaintiff to prosecute the suit warrants the imposition of costs."::: Uploaded on - 12/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2026 22:11:09 :::
3/7 9 COMAPL-5608-26.odt
4. Mr.Nankani has invited our attention to the various orders passed in Commercial I.P. Suit filed by the Plaintiff, seeking relief in respect of infringement of the alleged intellectual property rights.
The Plaintiff had filed a Suit, inter alia, praying for permanent injunction against the Defendants for restraining them from divulging, disseminating, making known to third parties and/or public at large its confidential information or technical know-how to extract the active Ingredient, as set out in the plaint and/or any other information disclosed to the Defendants pursuant to the Confidentiality Agreement dated 23/06/2005 entered between them, which was to remain effective for a period of five years.
5. Upon the plaint being filed, by order dated 26/09/2014, leave was granted in favour of the Plaintiff under clause 12 of the Letters Patent and the Defendants filed Chamber Summons (L) No.1701 of 2014, seeking revocation of the said leave. By the order dated 18/09/2014, Chamber Summons came to be dismissed, finding no merit and substance, thereby confirming the grant of leave in favour of the Plaintiff.
6. The various orders placed before us, being passed in the Suit also include the order dated 18/11/2014 passed in Notice of Motion (L) No.2267 of 2014.
On 22/09/2015, by consent of the Advocates for the parties, the issues in the Suit were settled and the Plaintiff was directed to file the affidavit of evidence, affidavit of documents and compilation of documents on or before 20/10/2015 and even the Defendants were also directed to file their affidavit of documents and compilation of documents.
::: Uploaded on - 12/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2026 22:11:09 :::4/7 9 COMAPL-5608-26.odt On 28/10/2015, the time to ensure compliance was extended upto 18/11/2015.
7. From the Farad Sheet it is evident that the proceedings came to be adjourned on one count or other, but the perusal of the order dated 01/08/2016 reveal that on previous date, there was some discussion about appointment of an Expert under Section 115 of the Patents Act, 1970, so as to assess the process used by the Plaintiff as also that used by the Defendants, for the production of their respective products and it was also indicated that there shall set of the terms of reference for the Expert, which deserved consideration at the end of the Defendants.
8. On 16/04/2019, order in terms of Consent Minutes was signed with regard to the appointment of the Expert Commissioner to ascertain the process being used by the Plaintiff and the Defendants and it was agreed that necessary confidential information shall be furnished to the Expert as regards the process that was employed and this information shall be kept confidential. The Consent Terms also agreed for visit of the Expert and the access to be provided to him at the factory as well as the relevant past record etc. The Suit was kept pending at this stage till 13/11/2025. On 13/11/2025, since none represented the Plaintiff, the proceedings were directed to be listed, under caption "For Dismissal".
9. On 20/11/2025, the following order was passed :-
::: Uploaded on - 12/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2026 22:11:09 :::5/7 9 COMAPL-5608-26.odt "1. Today, Mr.Naik appeared on behalf of the Plaintiff and pointed out that he has only been recently engaged to appear in the matter. He thus sought time.
2 At his request, stand over to 18 th December 2025. No further time will be granted."
10. The above order is followed by the impugned order dismissing the Suit for want of prosecution and though we concur with the view expressed by the learned Single Judge that the Commercial Suit is required to be proceeded with and decided expeditiously, in light of the object and mandate of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, we do not agree with the finding that there was lack of diligence and a clear disinterest on part of the Plaintiff in prosecuting the Suit.
On perusal of the roznama in the proceedings, we note that after the issues were settled on 22/09/2015, the Plaintiff was directed to file affidavit of evidence, affidavit of documents and compilation of documents and even similar direction was issued to the Defendants, to file their affidavit of documents and compilation of documents on or before 20/10/2015.
11. The proceedings were interrupted by appointment of an Expert and it is on 16/04/2019, the parties signed Consent Minutes of Order and time was granted to the Defendants to file their response to the affidavit filed by the Plaintiff on 16/04/2019. The Suit, alongwith pending Interim Applications, was simplicitor adjourned till the learned Single Judge directed it to be placed for dismissal.
According to us, the conduct of the Plaintiff cannot be described as an act of 'lack of diligence', as we find that there was a stoic silence on behalf of both the parties for ::: Uploaded on - 12/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2026 22:11:09 ::: 6/7 9 COMAPL-5608-26.odt considerable point of time and the proceedings in the Suit did not move ahead.
In any case, it would be too harsh for the Plaintiff to be accused of lack of diligence, resulting into dismissal of the proceedings for want of prosecution, and therefore, we deem it appropriate to set aside the order dated 18/12/2025 and direct the Suit to be restored to its file.
We, however, make it clear that the parties shall be conscious that the Suit is a commercial suit and require expeditious disposal, keeping in mind the object of enacting the special statute.
12. Mr.Nankani has placed before us a copy of the affidavit in lieu of examination in chief on behalf of the Plaintiff, which according to him, was affirmed on 09/12/2015 and was ready to be filed, but since the proceedings were interrupted by appointment of an Expert, it remained to be filed.
In any case, since the affidavit will have to be reaffirmed, as we are informed that the deponent of the affidavit is no more available, a fresh affidavit in lieu of examination in chief will have to be filed and we permit the same to be filed within a period of four (4) weeks.
We also direct the parties to strictly adhere to the time- line that would be fixed by the learned Single Judge in trial of the Suit.
13. While we set aide the impugned order, we also modify the order of payment of cost and we direct the Appellant (Plaintiff) to pay a cost of Rs.1,00,000/- to each of the Defendants, whose ::: Uploaded on - 12/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2026 22:11:09 ::: 7/7 9 COMAPL-5608-26.odt bank details are given below, within a period of two (2) weeks for delaying the prosecution of the Suit filed by it. Sr.No. Name of the Defendants Bank Account No. IFSC Code
1. Chemiloids Life Sciences AXIS Bank 920030069494419 UTIB0000069 Private Limited
2. Laila Nutra Private AXIS Bank 921030039363724 UTIB0000069 Limited
3. Gokaraju Ganga Raju UCO Bank 17520100003404 UCBA0001752
4. Gokaraju Rama Raju UCO Bank 17520100003432 UCBA0001752
5. GokarajuVenkata Kanaka UCO Bank 17520100003429 UCBA0001752 Ranga Raju
6. KiranBhupathiraju HDFC Bank 01091050142308 HDFC0000109
7. Trimurtulu Golakoti HDFC Bank 01091050081633 HDFC0000109
8. Venkata Krishna Raju HDFC Bank 01091050081186 HDFC0000109 Alluri We make it clear that the Suit shall be restored to its file, subject to deposit of the aforesaid amount.
14. Commercial Appeal (L) No.5608 of 2026 stands allowed in the aforestated terms. Pending Interim Application is also disposed of.
(MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J.) (BHARATI DANGRE, J.) ::: Uploaded on - 12/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2026 22:11:09 :::