Delhi High Court - Orders
Shiv Shankar vs Central Council For Research In ... on 2 September, 2022
Author: Satish Chandra Sharma
Bench: Chief Justice, Subramonium Prasad
$~68.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ LPA 504/2022
SHIV SHANKAR ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Rajesh Ranjan Singh, Mr. L.K.
Passi & Ms. Preeti Chaudhary,
Advocates.
versus
CENTRAL COUNCIL FOR RESEARCH IN
AYURVEDIC SCIENCES AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Arunima Dwivedi, CGSC with
Ms.Ashi Sharma & Mr. Ved Prakash,
Advocates for Respondents/ UOI.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD
ORDER
% 02.09.2022 C.M. No. 38282/2022
1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. The application stands disposed of.
LPA 504/2022 and C.M. No.38283/2022
3. The present Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) arises out of order dated 04.05.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.6938/2022.
4. The facts of the case reveal that the Appellant has approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 6938/2022 contending that he has invented an Signature Not Verified Digitaaly Signed By:BHUPINDER SINGH ROHELLA Signing Date:05.09.2022 12:49:40 Anti-Fertility Composition. It has been further stated that an agreement took place between the Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences and the Appellant on 16.12.2015. Clauses 1 to 7 of the said agreement are reproduced as under:
"1. Sh. Shiv Shankar will disclose the formulation, its ingredients and SOPs (Standard operating procedure) in the agreement made between him and the Director General, CCRAS, New Delhi Annexed at page 4.
2. The product and process has already been patented (patent no. 238290 dated 28.01.2010) for "AN ANTI-FERTILITY COMPOSITION" by the claimant Sh. Shiv Shankar, it is now essential that the amendment in the patent has to be submitted by the claimant in the patent office for inclusion of the name of the CCRAS in the patent.
3. CCRAS shall develop the product from the formulation provided by the claimant which will include standardization, pre-clinical and clinical studies etc. for which Sh. Shiv Shankar will provide the SOPs (Standard operating procedure) and other Details as and when required by CCRAS.
4. The disclosed information is to be kept confidential by both the parties for which agreement of non-disclosure will be signed.
5. The sharing of the benefits if any out of this product thus developed will be shared EQUALLY by CCRAS and the claimant excluding NRDC (National Research Development Corporation) share.
6. The commercialization of the product will be the joint responsibility of the CCRAS and Sh. Shiv Shankar through NRDC.
7. If any adverse effect other than what is claimed is observed at any stage during the trial; the study will be discontinued as per prevailing guidelines with intimation to claimant."Signature Not Verified Digitaaly Signed By:BHUPINDER SINGH ROHELLA Signing Date:05.09.2022 12:49:40
5. The Appellant in his Writ Petition had prayed for enforcement of the aforesaid agreement. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the Writ Petition holding that the disputes being purely contractual in nature cannot be enforced by invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court. The order dated 04.05.2022 dismissing that Writ Petition is reproduced as under:
" This petition has been preferred seeking the following reliefs:-
" a. issue necessary directions against the respondents to implement and take appropriate actions according to the terms and conditions of an agreement dated 16.12.2015 executed between the petitioner and respondent no. l or in the alternative to initiate the processes by the respondents to bring the product in the market commercially as a product for birth control/Antifertility composition the people at large for consumption of the said product and petitioner may earn from same."
It is ex-facie evident that the petitioner essentially seeks enforcement of an agreement which was entered into by him with the Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences. The jurisdiction of the Court as conferred by Article 226 of the Constitution cannot possibly be invoked for enforcement of an agreement entered into between the parties. The alleged failure on the part of the Council to abide by its contractual obligations is clearly not an issue which would warrant consideration by the Court in its writ jurisdiction.
The Court additionally notes that in any case and as is contended, if the petitioner does hold the patent of the formulation in question, it is always open to him to press forth with the development and marketing of the product at his own instance.
The writ petition along with pending application fails and shall stand dismissed."
Signature Not Verified Digitaaly Signed By:BHUPINDER SINGH ROHELLA Signing Date:05.09.2022 12:49:406. Learned Counsel for the Appellant has vehemently argued before this Court that the Writ Petition could not have been dismissed in the manner it has been done and the learned Single Judge was under an obligation to decide the matter on merits. He has placed reliance on a judgment titled Life Insurance Corporation of India & Others Vs. Asha Goel (Smt) & Another, (2001) 2 SCC 160. Paragraph 10 of the said judgment reads as under:
"10. Article 226 of the Constitution confers extraordinary jurisdiction on the High Court to issue high prerogative writs for enforcement of the fundamental rights or for any other purpose. It is wide and expansive. The Constitution does not place any fetter on exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction. It is left to the discretion of the High Court. Therefore, it cannot be laid down as a general proposition of law that in no case the High Court can entertain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution to enforce a claim under a life insurance policy. It is neither possible nor proper to enumerate exhaustively the circumstances in which such a claim can or cannot be enforced by filing a writ petition. The determination of the question depends on consideration of several factors like, whether a writ petitioner is merely attempting to enforce his/her contractual rights or the case raises important questions of law and constitutional issues, the nature of the dispute raised; the nature of inquiry necessary for determination of the dispute etc. The matter is to be considered in the facts and circumstances of each case. While the jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be denied altogether, courts must bear in mind the self-imposed restriction consistently followed by High Courts all these years after the constitutional power came into existence in not entertaining writ petitions filed for enforcement of purely contractual rights and obligations which involve disputed questions of facts. The courts have consistently taken the view that in a case where for determination of the dispute raised, it is Signature Not Verified Digitaaly Signed By:BHUPINDER SINGH ROHELLA Signing Date:05.09.2022 12:49:40 necessary to inquire into facts for determination of which it may become necessary to record oral evidence a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution, is not the appropriate forum. The position is also well settled that if the contract entered between the parties provide an alternate forum for resolution of disputes arising from the contract, then the parties should approach the forum agreed by them and the High Court in writ jurisdiction should not permit them to bypass the agreed forum of dispute resolution. At the cost of repetition it may be stated that in the above discussions we have only indicated some of the circumstances in which the High Court have declined to entertain petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution for enforcement of contractual rights and obligation; the discussions are not intended to be exhaustive. This Court from time to time disapproved of a High Court entertaining a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution in matters of enforcement of contractual rights and obligation particularly where the claim by one party is contested by the other and adjudication of the dispute requires inquiry into facts. We may notice a few such cases; Mohd. Hanif v. State of Assam [(1969) 2 SCC 782] ; Banchhanidhi Rath v. State of Orissa [(1972) 4 SCC 781] ; Rukmanibai Gupta v. Collector, Jabalpur [(1980) 4 SCC 556] ; Food Corpn. of India v. Jagannath Dutta [1993 Supp (3) SCC 635] and State of H.P. v. Raja Mahendra Pal [(1999) 4 SCC 43] ."
7. It is true that even contractual matters can be looked into by this Court in exercise of powers conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, every matter has to be considered in the facts & circumstances of each case. The facts of the present case also indicates that the parties have to establish their case by adducing evidence, and in the facts of the present case, the Writ Petition cannot be entertained.
8. In the considered opinion of this Court, the appropriate remedy available to the Appellant is to file a Suit where all disputed questions of Signature Not Verified Digitaaly Signed By:BHUPINDER SINGH ROHELLA Signing Date:05.09.2022 12:49:40 facts can be looked into and not a Writ Petition, and therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the learned Single Judge was justified in dismissing the Writ Petition.
9. The Writ Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed with liberty to the Appellant to avail the appropriate remedy available under Civil Law.
SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, CJ SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J SEPTEMBER 2, 2022 B.S. Rohella Signature Not Verified Digitaaly Signed By:BHUPINDER SINGH ROHELLA Signing Date:05.09.2022 12:49:40