1. The commercial cause, registered as CS(Comm) No. 132/2016, in the course of which prayer for ad interim injunction under Rules 1 and 2 of Order XXXIX read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) has been made, by application (IA 2406/2016), resulting in some ad interim orders being passed, followed by application (IA 4277/2016) moved by the opposite party under Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC seeking such orders to be recalled or vacated, besides the move by the plaintiffs, by application (IA 9070/2016) alleging breaches and seeking action or direction under Order XXXIX Rule 2 A CPC, was instituted in February 2016 by three plaintiffs, joining together, they being Monsanto Technology LLC (“the first plaintiff”), Monsanto Holdings Private Limited (“the second plaintiff”) and Mahyco Monsanto Biotech (India) Pvt. Ltd. (“the third plaintiff”) impleading three defendants, they being Nuziveedu Seeds Limited (“the first defendant”), Prabhat Agri Biotech Limited (“the second defendant”) and Pravardhan Seeds Private Ltd. (“the third defendant”), claiming cause of action to have arisen on account of defendants continuing to “market and sell” Genetically Modified Hybrid Cotton Planting Seeds inspite of termination of the sub-license agreements including trademark sub-license agreements, alleging violation of their intellectual property rights vis-à-vis the registered patent (IA 214436), hereinafter referred to as “the suit patent”, and trademarks BOLLGARD and BOLLGARD II, the acts of commission or omission indulged in by the defendants being such as amount to infringement or passing off of the defendants “illegally” manufactured products sold or offered to be sold in such packing or under labels (BOLLGARD) bearing such marks as are identical or deceptively or confusingly similar to that of the plaintiffs, the prayers in the suit primarily being for permanent prohibitory injunction against such infringement of registered patent and trademarks, or passing off, besides mandatory injunction for requisite disclosures, recall of infringing products or material and delivering up in addition to rendition of accounts, leading to award of damages (including penal) etc. The application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC makes identical prayer in the form of ad interim orders.

A. PARTIES TO DISPUTE

2. The first plaintiff Monsanto Technology LLC (hereinafter also referred to as “Monsanto”) is a limited liability company existing under the laws of State of Delaware in United States of America (USA), it alongwith its affiliates and subsidiaries being engaged in the business of agricultural products having business in several countries, the second plaintiff being its wholly owned subsidiary duly incorporated under Indian Companies Act, 1956 having its presence in Delhi. The third plaintiff, on the other hand, is a joint venture company incorporated under Indian Companies Act, 1956 in which Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Company Ltd. and Monsanto Investments India Pvt. Ltd. (another subsidiary of the first plaintiff), both companies incorporated under Indian Companies Act, are stake holders, the three plaintiffs having joined to assert, by the present suit, their common interests in the intellectual property rights vis-à-vis the defendants.

3. Each of the three defendants are companies incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956, the second and third defendants being subsidiaries of the first defendant, they (the defendants) having allegedly indulged in acts of commission or omission giving rise to the cause of action claimed here vis-à-vis the patent and trademarks of the plaintiffs, similar disputes having arisen under the sub-licenses earlier granted by the plaintiffs in their respective favour vis-à-vis the registered patent and trademarks of the defendants who, in turn, have joined to resist the suit by filing a common written statement dated 28.03.2016.

4. Before proceeding further, be it noted that the defendant submitted two cou