IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
C. Hari Shankar, J.
Gsp Crop Science Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Br Agrotech Limited & Anr. – Respondents
CS(COMM) 82 of 2023 & I.A. 4327 of 2023
Decided On : 03-03-2023
Order XXIII Rule 3 of CPC - Settlement Agreement - The court decreed the suit in favor of Defendant 1 based on the terms of settlement, acknowledging Defendant 1's acknowledgment of the plaintiff's exclusive rights in the patented formulation and the agreement to refrain from infringing on the plaintiff's rights.
Fact of the Case:
The application was made under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure for the decreeing of the suit in favor of Defendant 1, as the dispute between the petitioner and Defendant 1 stands settled.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that no dispute survived between the plaintiff and Defendant 1, and accordingly decreed the suit in favor of Defendant 1 based on the terms of settlement.
Issues: The main issue was the settlement agreement between the plaintiff and Defendant 1, and whether the court should decree the suit based on the terms of settlement.
Ratio Decidendi: The court analyzed the terms of settlement and the acknowledgment by Defendant 1 of the plaintiff's exclusive rights in the patented formulation, leading to the decision to decree the suit in favor of Defendant 1.
Final Decision: The court allowed the application and decreed the suit in favor of Defendant 1 based on the terms of settlement.
JUDGMENT (Oral)
I.A. 4327/2023 (Under Order XXIII Rule 3 of CPC)
1. This is an application under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), for decreeing of the suit qua Defendant 1, as the dispute between the petitioner and Defendant 1 stands settled.
2. The terms and conditions of settlement have been set out in the application, and read thus:
"i. BR Agrotech i.e., Defendant No. 1 acknowledges the Plaintiff's exclusive right in dealing in products containing the formulation which is subject matter protected by the claims of Indian Patent 394568 i.e., the suit patent;
ii. BR Agrotech further also acknowledges the validity of Indian Patent 394568 and acknowledges that any act of making, using, offering for sale, selling or importing, the subject matter of the claims of the suit patent, will violate the statutory rights of the Plaintiff therein;
iii. BR Agrotech stipulates that it has manufactured and sold a suspo-emulsion formulation of Pyriproxyfen 5% and Diafenthiuron 25% to the following Companies as mentioned below. The details till date of the signing of this settlement are set out hereinbelow:
| Sale Volume (KL) | |||
| Customer | Brand Name | 2021-22 | 2022-23 |
| ATUL LIMITED | CROLIS | 0 | 8 |
| FMC INDIA PVT LTD. | AMADIS SUPER | 0 | 34 |
| HERANBA INDUSTRIES LIMITED | ROXYFIN | 25 | 43 |
| MAHINDRA | STRAZER | 45 | 12 |
| RALLIS INDIA LIMITED | BORIS | 0 | 52 |
| RAMCIDES CROPSCIENCE PVT. LTD | FENPROX | 12 | 16 |
| COROMANDEL | BULK | 16 | |
| Grand Total | 98 KL | 165 KL |
iv. BR Agrotech affirms that it has not manufactured or sold any product infringing the claims of IN 394568 to any other entity apart from the Companies identified above in paragraph (iii), and undertakes that during the lifetime of IN' 568 it will not infringe the rights of the Plaintiff in the claims of the suit patent in any manner, including for example, by making, using, offering for sale, selling or importing a product which falls within the scope of the claims of IN 394568;
v. BR Agrotech also undertakes to inform the Plaintiff within 48 hours of any request received from any third party for supply of any product which comprises of a suspo-emulsion of Pyriproxyfen range of 1-15% and Diafenthiuron in range of 5-25% and to assist and cooperate with the Plaintiff in any enforcement action that the Plaintiff may choose to pursue against such third party;
vi. BR Agrotech agrees to suffer a decree in terms of Prayer (a) of the plaint, as set out hereinbelow:
"A decree of permanent injunction restraining the Defendant, their directors, employees, officers, servants, agents, subsidiaries, affiliates and all other acting for and on their behalf from making, using, selling, distributing, advertising, exporting, offering for sale, and in any other manner, directly or indirectly, dealing in any product or process that infringes the claimed subject matter of the Plaintiff's Indian Patent No. 394568 or any of the claims thereof, including any suspo-emulsion formulation of Pyriproxyfen and Diafenthiuron wherein the Pyriproxyfen is in the range of 1-15% and Diafenthiuron is in the range of 5-25%"
vii. BR Agrotech undertakes to seek a license from the Plaintiff in the event it wishes in the future to manufacture or sell or carry out any other commercial activity in respect of any suspo-emulsion formulation of Pyriproxyfen 1-15% and Diafenthiuron 5-25% protected by Indian Patent 394568;
viii. Plaintiff undertakes to cooperate with Defendant No. 1 i.e., BR Agrotech in the application it will move to secure release from the Hon'ble Court of the original material including any documents etc., seized during the raid conducted on its premises in New Delhi on 20.02.2023;
ix. Subject to the undertakings and statements given by the parties herein, the Plaintiff waives its claim for delivery up, damages, rendition of accounts and costs of the proceedings as regards the Defendant No. 1;
x. Parties agree and undertake that above undertakings and statements shall be binding henceforth on the parties as appropriate, as well as their respective associates, representatives, successors, par
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to decree a suit based on a settlement agreement under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Settlement terms enforceable under CP Code, where defendant acknowledges patent validity and agrees to refrain from infringing activities.
The court upheld the proprietary right of the plaintiff over the patented agricultural composition and prohibited Defendant 1 from infringing the plaintiff's patent.
The court upheld the enforceability of the terms of settlement under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the CPC, leading to the decree of the suit in the terms of settlement.
A patentee holds exclusive rights against third parties under Section 48 of the Indian Patent Act, allowing for permanent injunction against infringers based on unequivocal admissions of patent infri....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's recognition and enforcement of a settlement agreement under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the CPC.
The acknowledgment of patent validity and early settlement entitles the plaintiff to a full refund of court fees under CPC Order XXIII Rule 3.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.