CADILA HEALTHCARE LTD v. ROCHE PRODUCTS (INDIA) PVT LTD AND 4 ORS
The judgment provides a detailed analysis of Order VII Rule 11 CPC and Section 41(b) SRA.
Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2025:BHC-OS:8657
Decision Date: 09-06-2025
List of Laws
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Specific Relief Act, 1963; Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: The judgment extensively discusses Order VII Rule 11 CPC, concerning the rejection of a plaint. It details arguments from both sides regarding whether the plaint discloses a cause of action, is barred by law, or is vexatious. The court emphasizes that the plaint must be read as a whole, without additions or subtractions, to determine if it discloses a cause of action. The judgment cites several Supreme Court cases interpreting Order VII Rule 11, including Frost International Limited v. Milan Developers and Builders Private Limited, Cotton Corporation of India v. United Industrial Bank Limited, T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal & Another, Sopan Sukhdeo Sable vs. Assistant Charity Commissioner and Others, Dahiben Vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanushali, Eldeco Housing & Industries Ltd. vs. Ashok Vidyarthi & Ors., Liverpool & London SP & I Association Ltd. versus M.V.Sea Success I and Anr., Madanuri Sri Rama Chandra Murthy vs. Syed Jalan, Mayar (H.K.) Ltd. and Others. The court also refers to Section 10 CPC regarding stay of suit. The judgment also mentions Order 7 Rule 14(1) regarding production of documents.
- Specific Relief Act, 1963: The judgment discusses Section 41(b) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 ("SRA"), which bars a court from granting an injunction to restrain any person from instituting or prosecuting proceedings in a court not subordinate to that from which the injunction is sought. The court finds that the plaintiff's suit is barred by this provision, as the plaintiff is essentially seeking to prevent the defendant from initiating legal action.
- Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945: The judgment refers to Rule 122 DC of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945, concerning appeals against decisions of regulatory authorities. The Delhi High Court's order of 11th September 2023 held that the alternate remedy under Rule 122 DC of the Drugs Rules (i) was not available to Roche, and (ii) was no longer available as Rule 122 DC had been deleted from the statute book in 2019.
🔒 For Members Only