The Bombay High Court recently ruled that a civil suit cannot be filed merely on the basis of an apprehension that legal proceedings might be initiated in the future [Cadila Healthcare Ltd. v. Roche Products (India) Private Limited and Others]..The Court made the observation while dismissing a case filed by pharmaceutical company Cadila Healthcare Ltd.The Court found the company’s attempt to preemptively restrain another pharma company, Roche (India) Private Ltd, from allegedly interfering with the marketing and sale of its cancer drug to be legally unsustainable.A Single Bench of Justice Abhay Ahuja observed: "In my view, a suit cannot be filed on the basis of an apprehension that legal proceedings would be initiated in future. In any event, the plaint does not indicate any cause of action that there will be defendants’ interference with the launch and marketing of the similar drug." .The Court further stated: "Admittedly, the suit rests entirely on a mere apprehension that the defendants No.1 to 3 might interfere with the drug's launch and marketing. A suit cannot be sustained on such speculative grounds, especially when the plaintiff's drug was not only launched in 2015, but is also being marketed and sold since 2015 without any interference.".Cadila filed the suit in 2015, before launching its cancer treatment Vivitra. The drug is a biosimilar to Trastuzumab, a drug originally developed by Genentech Inc. and marketed in India by Roche Products (India) Private Limited.Roche's formulation patent had expired in 2013, allowing other companies to introduce biosimilars.Cadila claimed that Roche had previously initiated “frivolous and vexatious” legal proceedings against other Indian biosimilar manufacturers, and feared similar litigation would follow against its own product..Cadila sought a declaration affirming its right to launch and market Vivitra, and an injunction restraining Roche from interfering with its marketing activities. It argued that Roche no longer had enforceable patent rights in India and that the legal challenges raised by Roche in other forums were merely attempts to "perpetuate its monopoly" and block affordable alternatives to cancer treatment..Roche countered that the suit was fundamentally flawed, as it sought to restrain potential litigation, which is expressly barred under Indian law. Citing Section 41(b) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, Roche's counsel added that a court cannot grant an injunction to restrain any person from instituting or prosecuting any proceeding in a court not subordinate to the court from which the injunction is sought.Roche further contended that Cadila’s suit is the result of clever drafting designed to create the illusion of a cause of action, even though no such cause exists. Roche's counsel noted that Cadila's drug has been marketed for nearly a decade without any real interference from Roche..The Court accepted Roche’s arguments, concluding that Cadila’s apprehensions did not amount to a valid legal injury. "The plaint merely gives an impression of cause without substance creating an illusion of cause of action and does not really disclose any cause of action," it said..As the drug was already in the market, the Court observed that none of the reliefs sought in Cadila's petition can be granted. "If none of the remedies sought in the plaint can be granted, and the suit itself is based only on an apprehension that no longer exists because the plaintiff has already launched its drug without any interference from Roche, then the case does not reveal a valid cause of action," it said.Ultimately, the Court held that the suit was barred by law and failed to disclose any actionable right. The suit was, therefore, dismissed in its entirety. Cadila’s request for a stay on the order was also denied..Senior Advocate Veerendra Tulzapurkar, along with advocates Bijal Chhatrapati, Pratik Pawar, Shanaya Cyrus Irani, Siddhesh S Pradhan, instructed by J Sagar Associates, appeared for Cadila..Senior Advocate Birendra Saraf, along with advocates Ishwar Nankani along with advocates Huzefa Khokhawala and Abhishek Tiwari, instructed by Nankani & Associates appeared for Roche..Advocate Rajesh Singh appeared for the Union of India..[Read Judgment]
