Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CA/8960/2008 6/ 6 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CIVIL
APPLICATION No. 8960 of 2008
In
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 8009 of 2008
=========================================
WALLACE
PHARMACEUTICALS PVT LTD - Petitioner(s)
Versus
CADILA
HEALTHCARE LTD & 1 - Respondent(s)
=========================================
Appearance :
MR
SAURABHY SOPARKAR, SR. COUNSEL WITH MR. JATIN TRIVEDI, MR. HARSHIT
TOLIA, MR. TEJAS TRIVEDI FOR YJ TRIVEDI for
APPLICANT (s) : 1,
MR MIHIR THAKORE SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SINGHI &
CO for Respondent(s) : 1,
None for Respondent(s) :
2,
=========================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER
Date
: 04/08/2008
ORAL
ORDER
1. This
application is preferred with below mentioned prayers:
(A) YOUR
LORDSHIPS be pleased to recall the orders dated 06.06.2008 and
13.06.2008 passed by this Hon’ble Court in Special Civil Application
No.8009 of 2008 and pass suitable orders, in the interest of justice.
(B) YOUR
LORDSHIPS be pleased to pass appropriate orders initiating
proceedings of perjury/giving false evidence/making false statement
and prosecute the opponent No.1 – petitioner company and/or its
responsible officers in accordance with law, in the interest of
justice.
(C) YOUR
LORDSHIPS be pleased to stay the orders dated 06.06.2008 and
13.06.2008 passed by this Hon’ble Court in Special Civil Application
No.8009/2008, pending the admission, hearing and final disposal of
this application, in the interest of jusstice;
(D) YOUR
LORDSHIPS be pleased to grant such other and further reliefs, as may
be deemed fit by this Hon’ble Court, in the interest of justice;
2. It
appears from the aforesaid prayers and the averments made in the
application that the applicant has approached this Court on the
ground that the opponent i.e. original petitioner did not place
correct and complete facts before the Court, when the order dated
6.6.2008 and subsequent order dated 13.6.2008 came to be passed. It
also appears to be the case of the applicant that the product in
question in main petition i.e. Special Civil Application No.8009 of
2008 is different from what is mentioned in the order dated 6.6.2008.
The applicant has also claimed that on 4.6.2008, the applicant was
present before the trial Court, however, the opponent i.e. original
petitioner represented before the Court on 5.6.2008 as well as
6.6.2008 that the appearance on behalf of the applicant was not
entered. On the basis of such averments and allegations, present
application has been preferred.
3. Mr.
Soparkar, learned Senior Counsel appears on behalf of the applicant
and he, during his submission, reiterated the said details and
submitted that the original petitioner did not put correct and
complete facts before the Court when the order dated 6.6.2008 and
13.6.2008 came to be passed. He also submitted that in view of the
order dated 6.6.2008, it is being insisted before the learned trial
Court by the original petitioner that since the High Court has
granted injunction, the same should be continued. When with reference
to the said submission, the Court pointed out that the said order
dated 6.6.2008 and extended by order dated 13.6.2008 has already come
to an end, Mr. Soparkar, learned Senior Counsel submitted that the
need for preferring this application is on account of the fact that
original petitioner is, even after expiry of the said order,
representing before the trial Court that in view of the order passed
by the High Court, the interim relief should be granted in the suit
also.
4. Mr.
Thakor, learned Senior Counsel appears fro the opponent. He denied
the allegations and submitted that the applicant has no basis for
such apprehension and it is wholly unjustified. In view of the facts,
this Court is of the view that the apprehension of the applicant is
unwarranted. The scope and the purport of the order dated 6.6.2008
is not what the opponent, as per learned Senior Counsel Mr.
Soparkar’s submission, is trying to portray. The said order is very
clear and specific on this Count.
5. So
far as the aspect of the different product is concerned, the original
petitioner had, by circulating the Speaking to Minutes on 7.7.2008,
requested for modification or correction of the error and by order
dated 7.7.2008, necessary corrections were directed. Accordingly, by
order dated 7.7.2008, earlier order dated 6.6.2008 has been corrected
so far as the product in question is concerned.
6. As
regards apprehension of the applicant, it is required to be mentioned
that in the order dated 6.6.2008, this Court has expressly stated
that the learned trial Court would hear and decide the interim relief
application on its own merits. The said aspect is clear from the
sub-para (c) of the order dated 6.6.2008, which, for ready reference,
is reproduced below.
(c) It
would be open for the respondent to immediately enter appearance and
request the learned trial Court to take up the interim relief
application for hearing and pass necessary orders after hearing the
respondent and after making such a request before the learned trial
Court, the respondent may approach this Court to vacate or modify
the present order in case of need. The learned trial Court
will hear and decide the present petitioner’s interim application
on its merits and without being influenced in any manner by this
order or by the fact that this Court has granted the aforesaid
ad-interim relief. The learned trial Court shall consider all
the details and all the aspects of the matter as well as the
objections and reply of the defendant if the same is placed on
record, while passing an order on interim relief application. The
interim relief application shall be decided independently and on
merits by the learned trial Court.
7. Thus,
the apprehension of the applicant is ill-founded in light of what is
clarified by this Court in aforesaid paragraph. However, so as to
allay the apprehension of the applicant and to clarify the situation
for the benefit of the trial Court as well as for the petitioner, it
is again clarified that the learned trial Court shall hear and decide
the application Exhibit 5, Exhibit 14 or any other applications,
independently on their own merits and without being influenced in any
manner by orders dated 6.6.2008 and/or dated 13.6.2008 and/or even
without being influenced by the fact that this Court had passed the
stay order dated 6.6.2008. It is also clarified that the learned
trial Court shall consider all details and all aspects of the matter
independently on its own merits.
8. Mr.
Soparkar, learned Senior Counsel during his submission, stated that
the said clarification would serve the purpose of the applicant and
applicant does not pray for any other relief in the application and
the clarification would help the applicant and the application may be
disposed of with the said clarification. Hence, with the aforesaid
clarifications, the application is disposed of. Direct service is
permitted.
(K.M.THAKER,
J.)
ynvyas
Top