Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Arguments addressed on behalf of plaintiffs

29. Mr.Rajiv Nayar and Mr.Sandeep Sethi, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiffs, inter alia, argued that since the approvals are contrary to the provisions of the Act, Rules and Guidelines of 2012 by Government and the defendants are making misrepresentations to the doctors, hospitals and patients in the absence of requisite tests, the plaintiffs have no other remedy but to file the suit. They submit that despite of expiry of patent rights in 2013, the plaintiffs are manufacturing and marketing the drug in question and they are still market leaders in the entire world and the drug is one of the best drugs for the purpose of cancer treatment although they are not claiming data exclusively for comparison purposes at the time of obtaining the approval or any right on the molecule which was the subject matter of patent after its expiry. But the defendants on the basis of said approvals are trying to destroy the business of the plaintiffs and are also cheating the public at large by making misrepresentation in order to earn easy amount on the basis of spreading false information to the hospitals, doctors and patients providing the similar data and tests admittedly not conducted by them. The said illegal activities of the defendants have compelled the plaintiffs to file the suit. They argued that the drug of the defendant No.2 is not bio-similar. If they otherwise manufacture and market the cancer drug in question without claiming bio-similarity, the defendants No.2 to 4 are free to do so. They also argued that all the defendants have admitted before the Court that the defendant No.1 is not empowered to hear the grievances of the plaintiffs as per rules, thus, the suit filed by the plaintiffs is maintainable.