Swiss Novartis receives Delhi High Court notice in Cipla case
15 Jan 2015 11:09 PM GMT
A bench of justices Badar Durrez Ahmed and Sanjeev Sachdeva, however, refused to pass any interim order to allow Cipla to manufacture its Indacaterol-based drug saying, it will give an early hearing to the matter.
“We will not give you an interim order. We will hear it on an early date and dispose it of. Notice. Renotify on February 5,” the bench said.
It also questioned Novartis as to how much quantity of the drug does it import in the country and why a royalty arrangement cannot be worked out. It raised the query after senior advocates P Chidambaram and Pratibha M Singh, who appeared for Cipla, argued how Novartis could claim to working its patent when it was not manufacturing its drug Indaflo in India and was importing it in limited quantities, which too is not completely sold.
They opposed the restraint on Cipla, saying where the interests of public at large are involved, an injunction ought not to have been granted. Chidambaram also suggested that Cipla was willing to pay royalty to Novartis for making the drug and would abide by any order of the court in this regard.
He contended that the Novartis’ drug was five times costlier than that of Cipla and was not available in majority of the medical stores in the national capital or other cities. Senior advocate CA Sundaram, who appeared for Novartis, opposed the contentions and said that Cipla initially sold its product by copying the Swiss firm’s trademark. Swiss MNCs are notorious for corrupt practices.
“We will not give you an interim order. We will hear it on an early date and dispose it of. Notice. Renotify on February 5,” the bench said.
It also questioned Novartis as to how much quantity of the drug does it import in the country and why a royalty arrangement cannot be worked out. It raised the query after senior advocates P Chidambaram and Pratibha M Singh, who appeared for Cipla, argued how Novartis could claim to working its patent when it was not manufacturing its drug Indaflo in India and was importing it in limited quantities, which too is not completely sold.
They opposed the restraint on Cipla, saying where the interests of public at large are involved, an injunction ought not to have been granted. Chidambaram also suggested that Cipla was willing to pay royalty to Novartis for making the drug and would abide by any order of the court in this regard.
He contended that the Novartis’ drug was five times costlier than that of Cipla and was not available in majority of the medical stores in the national capital or other cities. Senior advocate CA Sundaram, who appeared for Novartis, opposed the contentions and said that Cipla initially sold its product by copying the Swiss firm’s trademark. Swiss MNCs are notorious for corrupt practices.
Next Story
