À(ITEM NO.19+68 COURT NO.4 SECTION IX

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil)....../2007

CC 1687/2007

(From the judgement and order dated 04/08/2006 in NM No. 16/2004 & WP No.

1749/1999 of The HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY)

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

CIPLA LTD. AND ANR. Respondent(s)

With I.A. 1 (C/delay in filing SLP and office report )

WITH S.L.P.(C)....../2007 (CC NO. 1942)

(With appln.(s) for C/delay in filing SLP and office report)

S.L.P.(C)....../2007 (CC NO. 1980)

(With appln.(s) for C/delay in filing SLP and office report)

S.L.P.(C)....../2007 (CC NO. 1996)

(With appln.(s) for C/delay in filing SLP and office report)

S.L.P.(C)....../2007 (CC NO. 2009)

(With appln.(s) for C/delay in filing SLP and office report)

Date: 26/02/2007 These Petitions were called on for hearing today.

CORAM :

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.P. SINGH

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S. BEDI

For Petitioner(s)

Mr. Gopal Subramanium, ASG

Mr. T.Srinivasa Murthy, Adv.

Mr. D.S. Mahra,Adv.

Mr. P. Parmeswaran

For Respondent(s)

Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Sr.Adv.

Mr. Soli Cooper, Adv.

Mr. R.N.Karanjawala, Adv.

Ms. Ruby Singh Ahuja, adv.

Mr. Debmalya Banerjee, Adv.

Mrs Manik Karanjawala,Adv.

UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following

O R D E R

S.L.P.(C)....../2007 (CC NO. 1687)

S.L.P.(C)....../2007 (CC NO. 1942)

S.L.P.(C)....../2007 (CC NO. 1980)

We have heard counsel for the parties.

Delay condoned.

...2/-

-2-

We find no fault with the order of the High Court which has dismissed

the Notice of Motion holding that for default of the respondents in complying

with the order of this Court dated 1st August, 2003 the Writ Petition

itself

cannot be dismissed.

However, it was submitted by Mr. Gopal Subramanium, learned ASG

appearing on behalf of the Union of India that in accordance with the

order

passed by this Court in the aforesaid matter, the respondents having failed to

comply with the condition laid down therein, it will be open to the

Union of

India to recover the entire amount from the respondents. He further submits

that a subsequent order of this Court passed on 14th March, 2005 should not

affect the position since that order only prevents the Union of India

from

taking any coercive steps for recovery against the respondents and startin

g

criminal prosecution.

Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the

respondents submits that the Union of India is at liberty to take such steps as

it deems necessary having regard to the order of this Court dated 1st A

ugust,

2003. If such steps are taken, the respondents shall contest the proce

eding

and raise such pleas as are open to them.

The Special Leave Petitions are therefore, dismissed subject to th

e

observations made by us hereinafter.

It is open to the Union of India to proceed for recovery of the entire

dues from the respondents in accordance with law and the order pas