Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(HP) 6357
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
G.S. Sandhawalia, CJ, Ranjan Sharma, J
Eris Lifesciences Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma Gmbh & Co. – Respondent
OMP No. 549 of 2025 | Commercial Appeal No. 01 of 2025
For the Appellant:Ms. Shradha Karol, Advocate
For the Respondents:
Procedural delays in appealing against interim injunctions must be justified, or such appeals may be dismissed.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure - Order XXXIX, Rules 1 & 2 - Interim injunction - Appeal filed against the interim order allowing injunction preventing the appellant from infringing patent rights pending civil suit. The injunction order was issued on 30.05.2024, and the appeal is barred by 208 days of re-filing due to procedural delays. (Paras 2, 3, 9)
(B) Delay in Re-filing - Condonation of delay application rejected due to insufficient cause shown for the delay in re-filing the appeal beyond the prescribed maximum period of 45 days. The urgency for challenging the order was also questioned by the court. (Paras 8, 9)
Facts of the case:
The appellant was restrained from infringing patent rights under Indian Patent No. 268846 during pending civil suit, and the appeal was filed late due to various procedural delays.
Findings of Court:
Insufficient cause to condone delay; appeal dismissed due to lack of timely action and interest in pursuing the appeal.
Issues: Whether sufficient cause was shown to condone the delay in re-filing, noting the urgency and merit of the appeal.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that delays in appeal processes must be adequately justified and cautioned against dismissing cases due to negligence in procedural adherence.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
G.S. Sandhawalia , Chief Justice (Oral)
The present appeal has been filed against the interim order dated 30.05.2024, passed by the learned Single Judge in an application bearing OMP No. 409 of 2023 filed under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure in Civil Suit (COMS) No. 09 of
2024.
2. The application for interim injunction Pwas allowed by the learned Single Judge and d.uring the pendency of the Civil Suit, the defendant-appellant herein, was restrained by itself, its directors, licensees, stockiest and distributors, agents and/or anyone claiming through any of them , jointly and severally from infringing on the patenrt rights of plaintiff-respondent No. 1 herein, under Indian Patent No. 268846 by launching, advertising, making, using, offering for sale, selling, importing and/or exporting the medicinal product, “Empagliflozin” in any form whatsoever including Empagliflozin API, Empagliflozin formulation, “Empagliflozin Tablets”, “Empagliflozin + Metformin Hydrochloride Tablets” and/or “Empagliflozin + Linagliptin 59 Tablets” or any “generic version” thereof or any product sold under the trade mark(s)/name(s) “Linares-E” or any other trade mark/name, whatsoever, or any other product covered by the subject patent granted by the Controller of Patents on September 18, 2015 in favour of plaintiff.
3. The appeal is also barred by 208 d.ays in re- filing, since copy of the impugned order was applied by the appellant on 27.06.2024 and the same was supplied on 03.07.2024 and thereafter, thoe appeal was filed on 03.08.2024 and after scruti ny on 28.08.2024, due to some objections, the srame had been returned to the appellant.
4. Apparently, the appeal was only re-filed on 05.05.2025. Resultantly, the application under Rule 7 of Chapter 6-C of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh (Appellate Side) and (Original Side) Rules, 1997 has been filed for condonation of delay in re-filing the appeal after removing objections.
5. In the aforesaid application, it has been mentioned that the case was inter-mingled with one of the case files and the same could not be traced out despite many efforts. Thereafter, the appeal was re- filed and delay as such is sought to be condoned in re-
filing the same.
6. it is not disputed by the Counsel as sPuch that the patent on the basis of which the suit .had been filed, had a shelf-life till 11.03.2025 and, therefore, in such circumstances, the strength of the injunction order as such would not be there after 11.03.2025.
7. Undisputedly, on merits, other prayers have also been made in rthe Civil Suit, which require adjudication by the learned Single Judge. The urgency as such, in challenging the said order also seems to be apparently lacking at the hands of the appellant, consequent to the sequence of events, as the interim order was passed way back on 30.05.2024. The copy of the same was applied after almost a month of the passing of the said order and thereafter, even after return of the appeal on 28.08.2024, no effort was made to remove the objections, which had been raised.
8. Thus, it is apparent that the appellant itself was not interested in pursuing the present appeal, knowing that the shelf-life of the litigation and injunction order which had been granted, was only till
11.03.2025.
9. In view of the above, we are of Pthe considered opinion that sufÏcient cause has .not been shown as such to condone the delay in re-filing the appeal, because as per the High Court Rules, the maximum period for re-filing the appeal is 45 days. In such circumstances, there w ould be no occasion for us as such to entertain ther present appeal.
10. The argument which has now been canvassed as such by the Counsel that the observations as such made in the interim order, might affect the hearing in the civil suit, is also without any basis. It is the settled principle that while passing an interim order as such, the findings which are recorded,
