Himachal Pradesh High Court
Commercial Appeal No. 01 Of vs Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma Gmbh & Co. & ... on 26 June, 2025
1
2025:HHC:20275
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA
.
OMP No. 549 of 2025 a/w
Commercial Appeal No. 01 of
2025
Date of decision: 26.06.2025
________________________________________________________
Eris Lifesciences Ltd. .....Appellant
Versus
Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma Gmbh & Co. & another
...Respondents
________________________________________________________
Coram:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice.
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting ?1
________________________________________________________
For the Appellant: Ms. Shradha Karol, Advocate.
G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral)
The present appeal has been filed against the interim order dated 30.05.2024, passed by the learned Single Judge in an application bearing OMP No. 409 of 2023 filed under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure in Civil Suit (COMS) No. 09 of 2024.
1Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 27/06/2025 21:27:04 :::CIS 22. The application for interim injunction was .
allowed by the learned Single Judge and during the pendency of the Civil Suit, the defendant-appellant herein, was restrained by itself, its directors, licensees, stockiest and distributors, agents and/or anyone claiming through any of them, jointly and severally from infringing on the patent rights of plaintiff-respondent No. 1 herein, under Indian Patent No. 268846 by launching, advertising, making, using, offering for sale, selling, importing and/or exporting the medicinal product, "Empagliflozin" in any form whatsoever including Empagliflozin API, Empagliflozin formulation, "Empagliflozin Tablets", "Empagliflozin + Metformin Hydrochloride Tablets" and/or "Empagliflozin + Linagliptin 59 Tablets" or any "generic version" thereof or any product sold under the trade mark(s)/name(s) "Linares-E" or any other trade mark/name, whatsoever, or any other product covered by the subject patent granted by the Controller of Patents on September 18, 2015 in favour of plaintiff.
::: Downloaded on - 27/06/2025 21:27:04 :::CIS 3.
3. The appeal is also barred by 208 days in re-
filing, since copy of the impugned order was applied by the appellant on 27.06.2024 and the same was supplied on 03.07.2024 and thereafter, the appeal was filed on 03.08.2024 and after scrutiny on 28.08.2024, due to some objections, the same had been returned to the appellant.
4. Apparently, the appeal was only re-filed on 05.05.2025. Resultantly, the application under Rule 7 of Chapter 6-C of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh (Appellate Side) and (Original Side) Rules, 1997 has been filed for condonation of delay in re-filing the appeal after removing objections.
5. In the aforesaid application, it has been mentioned that the case was inter-mingled with one of the case files and the same could not be traced out despite many efforts. Thereafter, the appeal was re-
filed and delay as such is sought to be condoned in re-
filing the same.
::: Downloaded on - 27/06/2025 21:27:04 :::CIS 46. it is not disputed by the Counsel as such .
that the patent on the basis of which the suit had been filed, had a shelf-life till 11.03.2025 and, therefore, in such circumstances, the strength of the injunction order as such would not be there after 11.03.2025.
7. Undisputedly, on merits, other prayers have also been made in the Civil Suit, which require adjudication by the learned Single Judge. The urgency as such, in challenging the said order also seems to be apparently lacking at the hands of the appellant, consequent to the sequence of events, as the interim order was passed way back on 30.05.2024. The copy of the same was applied after almost a month of the passing of the said order and thereafter, even after return of the appeal on 28.08.2024, no effort was made to remove the objections, which had been raised.
8. Thus, it is apparent that the appellant itself was not interested in pursuing the present appeal, knowing that the shelf-life of the litigation and injunction order which had been granted, was only till 11.03.2025.
::: Downloaded on - 27/06/2025 21:27:04 :::CIS 59. In view of the above, we are of the .
considered opinion that sufficient cause has not been shown as such to condone the delay in re-filing the appeal, because as per the High Court Rules, the maximum period for re-filing the appeal is 45 days. In such circumstances, there would be no occasion for us as such to entertain the present appeal.
10. The argument which has now been canvassed as such by the Counsel that the observations as such made in the interim order, might affect the hearing in the civil suit, is also without any basis. It is the settled principle that while passing an interim order as such, the findings which are recorded, are only for the purpose of Court's satisfaction to be recorded at that stage, which at that point of time, is on the basic principle of irreparable loss and injury to be caused to plaintiff and the balance of convenience. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the matter would be required to be dealt with the settled principle of law, once the pleadings are completed and the evidence comes on record.
::: Downloaded on - 27/06/2025 21:27:04 :::CIS 611. In such circumstances, we dismiss the .
application for condonation of delay in re-filing the appeal. Resultantly, the appeal also stands dismissed.
12. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
(G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice.
June 26, 2025 (Ranjan Sharma)
(hemlata) Judge.
::: Downloaded on - 27/06/2025 21:27:04 :::CIS