Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Delhi High Court - Orders

Chiest Farmceutici S.P.A vs Cipla Limited on 10 July, 2020

Author: Prateek Jalan

Bench: Prateek Jalan

$~1
*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

      I.A. 5202/2020 & I.A. 5203/2020
+     C.S.(COMM) 592/2019

      CHIEST FARMCEUTICI S.P.A.                  Plaintiff
                   Through: Mr. Pravin Anand, Ms.Vaishali
                              Mittal & Mr. Rohin Koolwal,
                              Advocates.

                                 versus

      CIPLA LIMITED                                          Defendant
                         Through:    Mr. Tahir A.J., Advocate.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN

                        ORDER

% 10.07.2020 I.A. 4418/2020(Application by the defendant for filing documents in sealed cover) in C.S.(COMM) 592/20219

1. This application has been listed before me in view of the order of the Roster Bench dated 19.06.2020.

2. A request for adjournment has been made on behalf of the defendant/applicant on the ground that Ms. Rajeshwari, learned counsel for the defendant is indisposed. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has no objection to the adjournment.

3. List on 31.07.2020.

I.A. 14854/2019(Application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC, 1908) in C.S.(COMM) 592/2019

1. This is an application for injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 CS(COMM) 592/2019 Page 1 of 2 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 filed by the plaintiff. Although it is not listed today, it is taken up with the consent of learned counsel for the parties.

2. Mr. Pravin Anand, learned counsel for the plaintiff had made his submissions on this application on 05.02.2020. However, in view of the restricted functioning of the Court, the application was not heard on the scheduled date and has not been taken up thereafter. The arguments of learned counsel for the defendant are yet to be heard. In the meanwhile, the roster has also been amended and I am now sitting in Division Bench- I with Hon'ble the Chief Justice.

3. In these circumstances, it is made clear, with the consent of learned counsel on both sides, that the application is not to be treated as part heard.

4. List on the scheduled date before the Roster Bench.

PRATEEK JALAN, J JULY 10, 2020 'pv' CS(COMM) 592/2019 Page 2 of 2