IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
CS(OS) 1797/2012, IA No.21415/12 (u/O 39 R-4), 11329/12 (u/O 39 R-
1and2) and 15746/12 (u/S 151 CPC).
SYMED LABORATORIES PVT LTD ..... Plaintiff
Through: Ms. Pratibha M. Singh, Ms. Saya Choudhary and Mr. Ashutosh
SHARON BIO-MEDICINE LTD and ORS ..... Defendants
Through: Mr. Rajiv K. Virmani, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Sunita K. Sreedharan,
Ms. Sarojh Nagaraj and Ms. Anandita, Advs.
Mr. Sagar Chandra, Adv. for D-2.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
O R D E R
IA No.5239/2013 (of the defendant no.1 for striking off the defence of
the plaintiff to the counter claim of the defendant no.1).
1. The counsel for the plaintiff appears on advance notice and states
that the written statement to the counter claim shall be filed within one
2. The senior counsel for the applicant/defendant no.1 contends that
owing to the ex parte injunction in favour of the plaintiff the business
of the applicant/defendant no.1 has come to a standstill and the
no.1 in the counter claim has sought revocation of the patent restraining
infringement of which ex parte injunction has been granted and the non-
filing of the written statement shows that the plaintiff has no defence.
CS(OS) 1797/2012 page 1
3. It is deemed appropriate to, by way of last opportunity, grant time
till 10th April, 2013 to the plaintiff to file the written statement to
the counter claim failing which the right to file written statement shall
stand closed without any further order.
4. The application is disposed of.
CS(OS) 1797/2012 and Counter Claim /2013.
5. The Registry to number the counter claim.
6. Upon the written statement to the counter claim being filed,
replication thereto be filed within two weeks thereafter. The replication
to the written statement in the suit be also filed by 10th April, 2013.
The reply to the application of the defendant no.1 under Order 39 Rule 4
be also filed by 10th April, 2013 and rejoinder thereof within two weeks.
7. The parties to file their documents within four weeks.
8. List before the Joint Registrar on 5th July, 2013 for
admission/denial of documents and before Court on 1st August, 2013 as
9. The counsel for the defendant no.1 seeks preponment of the date for
hearing of Order 39 R 4 CPC. The same is not possible. However liberty is
granted to the defendant no.1 to mention the matter on the date fixed if
the matter looks unlikely to reach.
IA No.5241/2013 (of the plaintiff and the defendant no.2 u/O-23 R-3 of
10. The application is stated to be signed by the representatives of
the plaintiff and the defendant no.2 and their respective Advocates and is also supported by the affidavits of the representatives of the
plaintiff and the defendant no.2.
CS(OS) 1797/2012 page 2
11. The counsel for the plaintiff and the counsel for the defendant
no.2 support the application.
12. The compromise arrived at in the application is found to be lawful.
13. The application is allowed and the undertakings of the defendant
no.2 contained in this application are accepted and the Directors of the
defendant no.2 are ordered to be bound thereby.
14. Accordingly, a decree for permanent injunction is passed in favour
of the plaintiff and against the defendant no.2 in terms of sub
paragraphs (i) and (ii) of the prayer clause in the plaint. No costs.
15. Decree sheet be drawn up.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J
APRIL 03, 2013
CS(OS) 1797/2012 page 2