Delhi High Court - Orders
Syngenta Limited And Anr vs Gsp Crop Science Limited on 29 May, 2025
Author: Amit Bansal
Bench: Amit Bansal
$~25
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS(COMM) 87/2020
SYNGENTA LIMITED AND ANR. .....Plaintiffs
Through: Ms. Sneha Jain, Ms. Priyam Lizmary
Cherian, Mr. Saif Rahman Ansari,
Ms. Mishti Dubey and Mr. Vivek
Kumar, Advocates.
versus
GSP CROP SCIENCE LIMITED .....Defendant
Through: Mr. G. Nataraj and Mr. Rahul
Bhujbal, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL
ORDER
% 29.05.2025 I.A. 13943/2025 (exemption from filing notarised and apostilled affidavits)
1. This application has been filed on behalf of the plaintiffs seeking exemption from filing of notarised and apostilled affidavits.
2. For the reasons stated in the application, the plaintiffs are granted 30 days' time to file the notarised and apostilled affidavits, if not already filed.
3. The application stands disposed of.
I.A. 13942/2025 (directions)
4. The present application has been filed on behalf of the plaintiffs seeking the following directions:
"(a) Direct the Scientific Advisor to furnish a copy of the complete NABL lab reports mentioned in ToR 12, after redacting Plaintiff's confidential protocol, if extracted in the NABL lab report.
(b) Direct the Scientific Advisor to provide clarifications on the points listed in paragraph 5 above, namely:
i. Whether the response to ToR 6 is limited to only the period 2019 and onwards, since the conclusion paragraph indicates the Defendant's use of PEG began in 2019, and the SOPs for 2016- CS(COMM) 87/2020 Page 1 of 3 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/06/2025 at 23:18:24 2018 provided by the Defendant do not specify PEG; ii. Whether, in relation to ToR 6, Trimethyl Amine (TMA) or Trimethyl Amine Hydrochloride (TMA.HCl) was used alongside PEG in the Defendant's process for manufacturing Azoxystrobin technical from 2019 and onwards, as per the SOPs or other records reviewed;
iii. Whether the response to ToR 8(a) is limited to the period 2019 and onwards since the identity of the catalyst used by the Defendant is not disclosed in the Defendant's SOPs for 2016 to 2018;
iv. Whether the process outlined in ToR 9(d) is limited to the year 2020 when Hebei Feng Ning Chemical Industry Co. was the Defendant's supplier of methyl methoxyacrylate intermediate;"
5. Mr. G. Nataraj, counsel appearing on behalf of the defendant has no objection insofar as the directions sought in paragraph 10(a) and paragraph 10(b)(i) and 10(b)(iv) are concerned. However, Mr. Nataraj has reservations with regard to the directions sought in paragraph 10(b)(ii) and 10(b)(iii).
6. Insofar as paragraph 10(b)(iii) is concerned, Mr. Nataraj submits that the directions should only be confined to the following:
(iii) Whether the response to Tor 8(a) is limited to the period 2019 and onwards.
6.1. Ms. Sneha Jain, counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiffs has no objection the same.
7. Insofar as direction sought in paragraph 10(b)(ii) is concerned, Mr. Nataraj submits that since Trimethyl Amine (TMA) or Trimethyl Amine Hydrochloride (TMA.HCl) is not the subject matter of the suit patent, hence, the clarification sought by the plaintiffs is not necessary.
8. Per contra, Ms. Jain appearing on behalf of the plaintiffs submits that since the Scientific Advisor in his report has made a reference to the process adopted by the defendant, this inquiry is necessary.
CS(COMM) 87/2020 Page 2 of 3This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/06/2025 at 23:18:24
9. Having heard the counsel for the parties, the following directions are passed:
9.1. The Scientific Advisor shall furnish a copy of the NABL lab report mentioned in ToR 12 after redacting plaintiffs' confidential protocol, as sought in paragraph 10(a) of the application.
9.2. Insofar as the clarification sought in paragraph 10(b) is concerned, the Scientific Advisor is requested to provide the following clarifications:
i. Whether the response to ToR 6 is limited to only the period 2019 and onwards, since the conclusion paragraph indicates the defendant's use of PEG began in 2019, and the SOPs for 2016- 2018 provided by the defendant do not specify PEG. ii. Whether, in relation to ToR 6, Trimethyl Amine (TMA) or Trimethyl Amine Hydrochloride (TMA.HCl) was used alongside PEG in the defendant's process for manufacturing Azoxystrobin technical from 2019 and onwards, as per the SOPs or other records reviewed.
iii. Whether the response to ToR 8(a) is limited to the period 2019 and onwards.
iv. Whether the process outlined in ToR 9(d) is limited to the year 2020 when Hebei Feng Ning Chemical Industry Co. was the defendant's supplier of methyl methoxyacrylate intermediate.
10. The application stands disposed of.
11. The clarifications/ documents shall be provided within four (4) weeks.
AMIT BANSAL, J MAY 29, 2025/kd CS(COMM) 87/2020 Page 3 of 3 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/06/2025 at 23:18:24