Delhi High Court - Orders
Genentech Inc And Others vs Drugs Controller General Of India And ... on 25 April, 2023
Author: Amit Bansal
Bench: Amit Bansal
$~25
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS(COMM) 234/2023
GENENTECH INC AND OTHERS ..... Plaintiffs
Through: Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Senior Advocate
and Mr.Darpan Wadhwa, Senior
Advocate with Mr.Abhishek Tewari,
Ms.Samiksha Godiyal, Ms.Ishita
Mathur and Mr.Parth Dua, Advocates.
versus
DRUGS CONTROLLER
GENERAL OF INDIA AND OTHERS ..... Defendants
Through: Mr.Kirtiman Singh, Mr.Waize Ali
Noor, Ms.Shreya V.Mehra and
Mr.Madhav Bajaj, Advocates for
DCGI.
Mr.C.M. Lall, Senior Advocate with
Ms.Bitika Sharma, Mr.Luv Virmani,
Ms.Addya Chawla, Ms.Ananya Chug,
Advocates for D-3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL
ORDER
% 25.04.2023 I.A. 20264/2022 (u/s 151 CPC)
1. The present application has been filed on behalf of the plaintiff seeking the following relief:
"a. Permit the following persons to have access to the information obtained by the Plaintiffs' experts during the inspection of the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AMIT BANSAL Signing Date:26.04.2023 18:35:59 CS(COMM) 234/2023 Page 1 of 4 Reliance Documents:
(i) The Plaintiffs' authorized signatory in the present Suit;
(ii) Advocates of S&R Associates (advocates-on-record for the Plaintiffs in the present Suit); and
(iii)Senior advocates representing the Plaintiffs in the present Suit."
2. Notice was issued on 20th December, 2022. Pursuant thereto, reply has been filed on behalf of the defendant.
3. Vide judgment dated 25th April, 2016, this Court had directed constitution of a Confidentiality Club comprising of two lawyers of the plaintiffs and one expert, for inspection of the documents of the defendant no.3 (hereinafter 'Reliance Documents').
4. The operation of the judgment passed by this Court on 25th April, 2016 was stayed by a Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 18th September, 2019. The judgment dated 18th September, 2019 was appealed before the Supreme Court, which upheld judgment dated 25th April, 2016 vide order dated 17th December, 2019.
5. Pursuant to the judgment dated 25th April, 2016, a confidentiality club comprising of two advocates and one expert nominated by the plaintiffs was created for the purpose of the inspection of the Reliance Documents. Initially, the plaintiffs nominated Dr.Samir Sangitrao as their expert member to the confidentiality club and the other two were advocates of the law firm representing the plaintiffs.
6. Dr. Sangitrao resigned from the employment of the plaintiff no.3 with effect from 25th September, 2020 and was replaced with Dr. Thomas Schreitmueller as the plaintiffs' expert to the confidentiality club. The Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AMIT BANSAL Signing Date:26.04.2023 18:35:59 CS(COMM) 234/2023 Page 2 of 4 plaintiffs' nominees to the confidentiality club completed inspection of the Reliance Documents between 3rd March, 2020 to 6th March, 2020, 29th August, 2022 to 3rd September, 2022 and 10th October, 2022 to 14th October, 2022.
7. The present application has been filed by the plaintiff seeking expansion of the Confidentiality Club as stated in the prayer set out above.
8. Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiffs submits that vide the judgment dated 25th April, 2016, this Court had granted liberty to the plaintiffs to amend the pleadings based on the information obtained from the inspection of the Reliance Documents.
9. Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the defendant opposes the present application on the ground that the highly confidential information of the defendant no.3 company cannot be shared with other persons by making them privy to the information, which is the subject matter of the confidentiality club. It would defeat the very purpose of forming a confidentiality club.
10. I have heard the counsel for the parties.
11. Evidently, the plaintiffs authorised signatory would have to review the information obtained during inspection and instruct the counsels to prepare the amendment application. Further, the amendment application would have to be supported with an affidavit of the authorized signatory of the plaintiffs. Similarly, the information obtained during the inspection would have to be shared with their advocates as well as senior advocates to enable them to draft/settle the amendment application.
12. Accordingly, the plaintiff's authorised signatory, Mr. Vivek Kashyap, who has filed an affidavit in respect of the present application is permitted to Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AMIT BANSAL Signing Date:26.04.2023 18:35:59 CS(COMM) 234/2023 Page 3 of 4 have access to the information obtained by the plaintiffs' experts during the inspection of the Reliance Documents. Further, Ms. Niti Dixit, Mr. Abhishek Tewari, Ms. Ishita Mathur and Mr. Satjit Chhabra, lawyers from the firm representing the plaintiffs and the senior advocates representing the plaintiffs in the present suit are also permitted to have access to the aforesaid information obtained by the plaintiffs' experts.
13. The aforesaid persons would be bound by confidentiality and shall not make copies or disclose the contents of the said aforesaid information to anyone, oral and written communications to the press, blog publications etc., in order to maintain the confidentiality except in the present proceedings.
14. The amendment application, for which liberty has already been granted by this Court shall be filed within a maximum period of 6 weeks from today. The said application shall be filed in a sealed cover and would be subject to further orders that may be passed by the Court.
15. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of. CS(COMM) 234/2023 & I.A. 3086/2020 (u/s 151 CPC)
16. List on 23rd August, 2023.
AMIT BANSAL, J.
APRIL 25, 2023 rt Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AMIT BANSAL Signing Date:26.04.2023 18:35:59 CS(COMM) 234/2023 Page 4 of 4