Back
2015 Supreme(Del) 4627
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Manmohan Singh, J.
BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY AND OTHERS — Appellants
Vs.
BPS REDDY AND OTHERS — Respondents
I.A. Nos. 3696, 13386 of 2013, 11383 of 2014, C.S. (OS) No. 2680 of 2008
Decided On : 17-11-2015
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Pravin Anand, Nishchal Anand, Aman.
For the Respondents: Ankur Sangal, Sucheta Roy.
The court emphasized that amendments will be allowed even after the expiry of the statutory period of limitation if they do not introduce a new cause of action and are aimed at deciding the rights of parties.
Headnote:
Patent Infringement - Indian Patent No. 203937 - Order 1 Rule 10, Order 6 Rule 14-A, Section 151 CPC - Order 1 Rule 10, Section 151 CPC - Order 1 Rule 10, Order 22 Rule 10, Order 6 Rule 17, Section 151 CPC
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs filed a suit for patent infringement, unfair competition, damages, and other reliefs against the defendants. The plaintiffs sought to amend the plaint to add a new defendant, Hetero Labs Ltd., as their actions would affect substantive rights of the plaintiffs.
Finding of the Court:
The court allowed the plaintiffs' application to add Hetero Labs Ltd. as defendant No. 3 and to amend the plaint accordingly. The court also allowed the deletion of defendant No. 1 and the impleadment of Bristol-Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland as plaintiff No. 3.
Issues: The main issue was whether the application to add Hetero Labs Ltd. as a defendant should be allowed, considering the delay in filing the application and the potential impact on the substantive rights of the plaintiffs.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the principle that an amendment will be allowed even after the expiry of the statutory period of limitation if it does not introduce a new cause of action. The court also emphasized that the object of the court is to decide the rights of parties and not to punish them for their mistakes.
Final Decision: The court allowed the plaintiffs' application to add Hetero Labs Ltd. as defendant No. 3 and to amend the plaint. The court also allowed the deletion of defendant No. 1 and the impleadment of Bristol-Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland as plaintiff No. 3.
JUDGMENT :
Manmohan Singh, J.
1. The plaintiffs have filed the suit for permanent injunction restraining infringement of registered Indian Patent No. 203937, unfair competition, damages, rendition of account and delivery up etc. against the defendants.
2. By way of this order, I propose to decide the following three applications filed by the parties:-
a. Application under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Order 6 Rule 14-A and Section 151 CPC being I.A. No. 3696/2013, filed by the plaintiffs.
b. Application under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC being I.A. No. 13386/2013, filed by defendant No. 1 for deletion of its name from the array of parties in the present suit.
c. Application under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Order 22 Rule 10 and Order 6 Rule 17 , further read with Section 151 CPC being I.A. No. 11383/2014, filed by the applicant, Bristol-Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland.
3. Firstly, I shall take the application being I.A. No. 3696/2013 filed by the plaintiffs.
4. The plaint was originally filed against the defendants, named Hetero Drugs Ltd. as defendant No. 2 and Mr. BPS Reddy, Managing Director of defendant No. 2 as defendant No. 1. It is stated on behalf of the plaintiffs that at the time of filing of the suit, the plaintiffs came to know that defendant Nos. 1 and 2 had filed an application for marketing approval for 'DASATINIB' API before the DCGI. The plaintiffs' apprehension regarding infringement of its Patent No. 203937 was further confirmed when the plaintiffs found that the defendants were advertising and offering for sale DASATINIB API on their website http://www.heterodrugs.com/htmls/productlist.htm under the title 'Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients' in their product list. However, subsequently in the light of defendants' averments, there was a slight confusion as regards the entity which had made an application for marketing approval before the DCGI, as on one hand the defendants in their written statement claimed that the application for marketing approval was in fact made by an associate company of defendant No. 2, namely Hetero Labs Ltd. and on the other hand the defendants in their interlocutory application being IA.No.12214/2011 averred that they had filed the application for marketing approval for DASATINIB API.
5. Counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiffs made the statement that the defendants' counsel informed the Court on few dates that the defendants have made an application before DCGI and it was their associate company i.e. Hetero Labs Ltd. which had made such an application and in view of the oral clarification made, the plaintiffs seek to implead Hetero Labs Ltd. as defendant No. 3 in the present suit as the actions of Hetero Labs Ltd. will affect substantive rights of the plaintiffs and that this suit cannot be adjudicated without the addition of Hetero Labs Ltd.
6. It is further submitted that preliminary search reveals that both the companies Hetero Drugs Ltd. and Hetero Labs Ltd. operate from the same registered address i.e. 7-2-A2, Hetero Corporate Industrial Estate, Sanathnagar, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh-500018. Printout of the extract from the website of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs showing the registered office of defendant No. 2 and Hetero Labs Ltd. has been enclosed as Annexure A along with this application. Therefore, prayer is made in the application to add Hetero Labs Ltd. having its registered office at 7-2-A2, Hetero Corporate Industrial Estate, Sanathnagar, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh-500018, in the array of parties in the present suit, as defendant No. 3 and the plaintiffs be permitted to amend the plaint to the effect of mentioning and describing Hetero Labs Ltd. as defendant No. 3 and also amend the plaint as regards the change of corporate address of defendant No. 1 and 2.
7. The prayer made in I.A. No. 3696/2013 is opposed by the learned counsel for the defendants stating that the application is liable to be dismissed as it has been filed after five years from the date of knowledg
