Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
C. Hari Shankar, J.
Novartis Ag & Anr. – Appellants
Versus
Dr. Reddy`s Laboratories Ltd. – Respondent
CS(COMM) 627 of 2019 & I.A. 12277 of 2023
Decided On : 11-07-2023
Settlement - Dispute between parties settled under Order XXIII Rule 3 of CPC - Summary of settlement terms and decreeing of the suit
Fact of the Case:
The dispute between the parties stands settled through a joint application under Order XXIII Rule 3 of CPC for decreeing the suit in terms of the settlement.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the terms of settlement to be lawful and in order, and decreed the suit in terms of the settlement, stating that nothing survives for adjudication in the present case.
Issues: Settlement of dispute, decreeing of the suit, court examination of settlement terms
Ratio Decidendi: The court examined the terms of settlement, found them lawful, and decreed the suit accordingly, stating that nothing remains for adjudication.
Final Decision: The suit stands decreed in terms of the settlement, and the plaintiff would be entitled to a refund of 50% of the court fees, if any, deposited by it.
ORDER (Oral)
CS(COMM) 627/2019 & I.A. 12277/2023 (under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the CPC)
1. The dispute between the parties in this case stand settled and a joint application has been filed by the parties under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) for decreeing of the suit in terms of the settlement.
2. Para 3 and 4 of the settlement read thus:
"3. The reliefs claimed in the present suit as well as in the counter claim have become infructuous inasmuch as, during the pendency of the suit and the counter claim, the term of the suit patent IN'051 has expired on 16.01.2023. In view thereof, the Parties have agreed to settle their disputes and their related actions, and resolve all the pending issues before this Hon'ble Court, regarding the suit patent IN'051 by releasing and discharging each other from any and all claims, demands, costs/damages, cause of action in relation to the present suit and counter claim.
4. The Plaintiffs hereby agree to forego their claims made in prayer paragraph nos. 35 (a) to (f) of the Plaint and the Defendant agrees to forego its claims made in prayer paragraph nos. 64 (a) to (d) of the counter claim, subject to a decree being passed in the suit and counter claim in terms of the respective undertakings of the Parties recorded herein. By signing the present application. the Parties hereto agree that they have no further claims and/or demands against each other in relation to the present suit and counter claim."
3. Learned Counsel for the parties are present. They undertake on behalf of their respective clients to be bound by the terms of settlement.
4. The Court has examined the terms of settlement and found them to be lawful and in order.
5. As such, nothing survives for adjudication in the present case.
6. This suit stands decreed in terms of the aforesaid terms of settlement arrived at between the parties by which the parties shall remain bound.
7. Let a decree sheet be drawn up accordingly by the Registry.
8. The plaintiff would be entitled to refund of 50% of the court fees, if any, deposited by it.
Enforcement of settlement terms under Order XXIII Rule 3 of CPC and decreeing of the suit in terms of the settlement
Mutual settlement of disputes allows parties to withdraw claims under Order XXIII Rule 3, leading to court decreeing the suit based on agreed terms.
The acknowledgment of patent validity and early settlement entitles the plaintiff to a full refund of court fees under CPC Order XXIII Rule 3.
Parties may settle disputes leading to a decree under Order XXIII, Rule 3 of the CPC, provided the terms are clear and binding.
The court upheld a consent decree based on a lawful settlement between parties regarding trademark and copyright rights, allowing for a refund of court fees.
Settlement terms agreed upon by parties can resolve litigation, requiring court endorsement and issuing of decrees consistent with those terms.
Parties reaching an amicable settlement qualify for court fee refunds, and private negotiations are acknowledged as valid dispute resolution methods under relevant statutes.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
