MONSANTO TECHNOLOGY LLC THRU THE AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE MS. NATALIA VORUZ & OTHERS versus NUZIVEEDU SEEDS LTD. THRU THE DIRECTOR & OTHERS

Citation: [2019] 1 S.C.R. 145 · Decided: 08-01-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.F. NARIMAN · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
145
MONSANTO TECHNOLOGY LLC THRU THE
AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE MS. NATALIA
VORUZ & OTHERS
v.
NUZIVEEDU SEEDS LTD. THRU THE
DIRECTOR & OTHERS
(Civil Appeal Nos. 4616-4617 of 2018)
JANUARY 08, 2019
[R. F. NARIMAN AND NAVIN SINHA, JJ.]
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908:
s.9 – Suit / Counter Claim – Adjudication – Procedure for –
Suit seeking permanent injunction against defendants, restraining
them from using their registered trade-mark in violation of the
registered patent – Also sought temporary injunction by filing
application u/Or. 39 rr. 1 and 2 of CPC – Defendants filed Written
Statement as well as their Counter Claim seeking revocation of the
patent u/s.64 of Patents Act – Single Judge of the High Court while
deciding application for injunction observed that nature and extent
of the patent claim was a matter to be examined after pleadings
were complete and evidence adduced, which did not merit comments
at the stage of interim injunction – Single Judge issued notice on
the Counter Claim – Appeal by both the parties – Division Bench of
High Court while allowing the Counter Claim of the defendants
dismissed the claim of the plaintiffs as regards the patent – On
appeal, held: Section 64 of Patents Act necessarily presupposes a
valid consideration of the claims in the suit and the Counter Claim
in accordance with law and not summary adjudication sans evidence,
by abstract consideration – CPC provides a detailed procedure with
regard to the manner in which a suit instituted u/s. 9, including
Counter Claim has to be considered and adjudicated – Division
Bench of High Court ought not to have examined the Counter Claim
in a summary manner usurping the jurisdiction of Single Judge –
Summary adjudication of a technically complex suit requiring expert
evidence, that too at the stage of interim injunction, was neither
[2019] 1 S.C.R. 145
145
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
146
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 1 S.C.R.
desirable nor permissible – Division Bench ought to have confined
itself to examination of the validity of the order of interim injunction
– In the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of the injunction
relief was in order and merits no interference during pendency of
the suit – Matter remanded to Single Judge – Patents Act, 1970 – s.
3(j) and 64.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. Section 64 of the Patents Act provides for
revocation of patent based on a counter claim in a suit.  It
necessarily presupposes a valid consideration of the claims in
the suit and the counter claim in accordance with law and not
summary adjudication sans evidence by abstract consideration
based on text books only.  The Civil Procedure Code provides a
detailed procedure with regard to the manner in which a suit
instituted under Section 9, including a counter claim has to be
considered and adjudicated. The CPC mandates a procedure by
settlement of issues, examination and cross-examination of
witnesses by the parties, including discovery/inspection of
documents, culminating in the hearing of the suit and decree.  A
suit can be disposed of at the initial stage, only on an admission
inter alia under Order 12 Rule 6 of CPC or when the parties are
not in issue under Order 16 Rule 1 and the other grounds. [Para
23][158-D-E]
2. The Division Bench of High Court ought not to have
disposed of the suit in a summary manner by relying on documents
only, extracted from the public domain, and not even filed as
exhibits in the suit, much less examination of expert witnesses,
in the facts of the present case. The issues raised were
complicated requiring technological and expert evidence with
regard to issues of chemical process, biochemical, biotechnical
and micro-biological processes and more importantly whether
the nucleic acid sequence trait once inserted could be removed
from that variety or not and whether the patented DNA sequence
was a plant or a part of a plant etc. are again all matters which
were required to be considered at the final hearing of the suit.
[Para 23][158-F-H]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
147
Alka Gupta v. Narender Kumar Gupta (2010) 10 SCC
141 : [2010] 1  SCR 756 – relied on.
3. The Division Bench ought not to have examined the
counter claim itself usurping the jurisdiction of the Single Judge
to decide unpatentability of the process claims 1-24 also in the
summary manner done.  Summary adjudication of a technically
complex suit requiring expert evidence also, at the stage of
injunction in the manner done, was certainly neither desi

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.