Delhi High Court - Orders
Sterlite Technologies Limited vs Hfcl Limited on 14 March, 2022
Author: Prathiba M. Singh
Bench: Prathiba M. Singh
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DEVANSHU JOSHI
Signing Date:17.03.2022
08:03:43
$~14
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS(COMM) 19/2022 & I.As. 504/2022, I.A. 1334/2022
STERLITE TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED ..... Plaintiff
Through: Mr. Chander Lall, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Ankur Sangal, Mr. Ankit Arvind,
Ms. Ananya Chug and Mr. Janak
Singh Jhala, Advocates.
(M:9873603089)
versus
HFCL LIMITED ..... Defendant
Through: Mr. Amit Sibal, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Dev Robinson, Ms. Apoorva
Murali, Ms. Neha Khanduri, Mr.
Krishna Tangirala, Mr. Saarthak Jain
& Mr. Saksham Dhingra Advocates.
(M:9560342348)
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
ORDER
% 14.03.2022
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. Submissions have been heard in part.
3. The present is a suit seeking inter alia, injunction restraining infringement of patent being Patent No.IN335369 (hereinafter "IN'69/Suit Patent") titled 'OPTICAL FIBER CABLE FOR BLOWING INTO DUCT', which relates to optical fiber cables. An application under Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC being I.A. No.1334 of 2022 has been filed for vacation of the interim order dated 12th January, 2022, injuncting the Defendants from making, manufacturing, using, offering for sale, selling, exporting and CS(COMM) 19/2022 Page 1 of 4 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DEVANSHU JOSHI Signing Date:17.03.2022 08:03:43 importing the optical fibers covered under the Suit Patent in India. The relevant part of the injunction order is set out below:
"21. Till the next date of hearing, the defendant, its subsidiaries, directors, servants, agents, licensee or any related/ parent companies, dealers, stockists and distributors and/or anyone claiming any right through any of them, restraining them, jointly and severally, in any manner, from making, manufacturing, using, offering for sale, selling, exporting and importing the optical fibers covered under the Subject Patent no. IN 335369 in India, as may amount to infringement of the Subject Patent No. 335369 of the Plaintiff.
22. Compliance of Order 39 Rule 3 CPC be made by plaintiffs within two weeks."
4. Submissions have been made by Mr. Chander M. Lall, Sr. Advocate, for about an hour. On behalf of the Defendant, it is submitted by Mr. Amit Sibal, ld. Sr. Counsel, that there are 18 purchase orders which have already been placed upon the Defendant by its purchasers for a value of more than 50 crores, the supply of which has been affected due to the operation of the injunction order. The said purchase orders include some of the cables that have been injuncted by this Court.
5. Mr. Sibal also submits that the Defendant has been selling cables which are stated to be infringing, since at least 2013. A couple of cable samples are produced before the Court which bear 2015 as the year of manufacture. One of these cables has also been handed over to Mr. Lall, ld. Sr. Counsel for the Plaintiff, who wishes to get the same examined, without prejudice to his client's rights.
6. Since the conclusion of submissions is likely to consume some more time and no order on merits can be passed without the conclusion of CS(COMM) 19/2022 Page 2 of 4 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DEVANSHU JOSHI Signing Date:17.03.2022 08:03:43 submissions by both the ld. Senior Counsels, it is deemed appropriate to put an interim arrangement in place.
7. As per the plaint, the cause of action arose sometime in September, 2021 and the suit itself was filed in December, 2021, while the interim order was granted on 12th January, 2022. The Defendant has handed over a chart of pending orders of micro cables from purchasers in Germany, UK, Dubai, etc. The total value of these purchase orders is stated to be Rs.5131.2 lakhs, out of which as per the chart given by the Defendant, the impugned products are stated to be to the tune of Rs.2426.6 lakhs. However, the Defendant submits that since some of these are composite orders of injuncted and non- injuncted products, they are unable to service the purchase orders amounting to Rs.5131.2 lakhs, in view of the injunction order.
8. Keeping the above in mind, the following directions are issued:
(i) Since all these purchase orders relate to November, December, January and February and only one purchase order is of 4 th March, 2022 and since the hearing is inconclusive, at this stage, the Defendant is permitted to supply to its customers the products as per these purchase orders only and file an affidavit to this effect confirming the supplies thereof and the exact date of the purchase orders, shipment, and place on record, supporting documents and the statement of accounts, etc. in this regard, within two weeks. If the same contain any commercially confidentially information, the documents may be filed in a sealed cover.
(ii) No further sales would, however, be made of the injuncted products until further orders of this Court. The injunction as granted on 12th January, 2022 shall continue, subject to the above, till the next CS(COMM) 19/2022 Page 3 of 4 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DEVANSHU JOSHI Signing Date:17.03.2022 08:03:43 date of hearing.
9. Ld. Sr. counsels for the parties have assured the Court that they would conclude their submissions in the afternoon session on the next date.
10. Let the pipes produced before the Court today be taken on record and retained in the Court. It is made clear that the above arrangement is without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties.
11. List on 4th April, 2022, at 2:30 p.m.
12. This is a part heard matter.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.
MARCH 14, 2022 dj/ms CS(COMM) 19/2022 Page 4 of 4