Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd. vs Merck Sharp And Dohme Corporation on 4 August, 2015
Bench: Ranjan Gogoi, N.V. Ramana
ITEM NO.8 COURT NO.8 SECTION XIV
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
PETITION(S) FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (C) NO(S). 9220/2015
(ARISING OUT OF IMPUGNED FINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 20/03/2015
IN FAO NO. 190/2013 PASSED BY THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI)
GLENMARK PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
MERCK SHARP AND DOHME CORPORATION & ANR. RESPONDENT(S)
[WITH APPLN.(S) FOR DIRECTIONS AND PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL
DOCUMENTS AND PERMISSION TO FILE SYNOPSIS AND LIST OF DATES AND
INTERIM RELIEF AND OFFICE REPORT]
Date : 04/08/2015 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA
For Petitioner(s) Ms. Pratibha N. Singh, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Chander M. L., Adv.
Ms. Saya Choudhary, Adv.
Mr. Asutosh, Adv.
Mr. Gaurav Sharma, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Kapil Sibal, Sr. Adv.
Mr. T.R. Andhyarujina, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Amit Sibal, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Pravin Anand, Adv.
Mr. R.N. Karanjawala, Adv.
Ms. Ruby Singh Ahuja, Adv.
Ms. Archana Shankar, Adv.
Ms. Deepti Sarin, Adv.
Mr. Karan Dev Chopra, Adv.
Mr. Soumik G., Adv.
Ms. Tusha Malhotra, Adv.
Mr. Salim Imandar, Adv.
Ms. Aakanksha Munjal, Adv.
Ms. Udita, Adv.
For M/s Karanjawala & Co.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Vinod Lakhina
Date: 2015.08.04
18:12:19 IST
Reason:
Page No.1 of 3
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
I.A. NO.3 IN SLP(C) NO.9220/2015 This application has been filed essentially seeking a direction to permit the applicant, who is the petitioner in the Special Leave Petition, to commence processing of unfinished formulation of Sitagliptin Phosphate Monohydrate (SPM) API, which is currently lying in the petitioner' factories into ZITA and ZITA-MET respectively. According to the petitioner, it has about 1770 kgs. of SPM API which needs to be processed to meet certain institutional commitments and also to effect supplies pursuant to tenders settled with the petitioner. Each of the averments made in the I.A. with regard to the value of the finished product from the formulation (SPM); the availability of the existing stock with the dealers of the petitioner to meet the institutional commitments and also the result of the tenders in which the petitioner had participated are disputed.
Pursuant to our previous order passed from time to time the hearing of the suit is at the final stages. If the suit is to be dismissed, the prayers made in the I.A. would become redundant. In the event the suit is to be Page No.2 of 3 decreed, the petitioner who is defendant therein can still make the prayers made herein before the High Court either before the learned single judge or in appeal. In a situation where the suit is at the final stages, we do not consider it appropriate to pass any orders allowing the reliefs sought in the I.A. as the same would not only be inappropriate but may also have the affect of creating certain new rights. We, therefore, refuse the reliefs prayed in the I.A. and dismiss the same.
SLP(C) NO.9220/2015
The Registrar General of the Delhi High Court shall inform the Court the result of the efforts that must have been undertaken for disposal of pending I.P.R. suits including patent suits pending in the High Court in the light of the observations made by us in our orders from time to time.
The Special Leave Petition be listed along with the report of the Registrar General after six weeks.
[VINOD LAKHINA] [ASHA SONI]
COURT MASTER COURT MASTER
Page No.3 of 3