Quia Timet II / The Drastic Power of Rejecting a Plaint VII

Posted on by Rudrajyoti Nath Ray

My Lord, Allegations in Plaint are Sufficient?

No.  

In assessing whether a quia timet plaint can be rejected outright [Order 7, Rule 11], Teva Pharmaceutical Industries v. Natco Pharma Limited, (2014) 212 DLT 321 cautions, a quia timet action must not be speculative, merely alleging without factual basis. The statement of claim must allege a deliberate expressed intention to engage in an activity, result of which would raise a strong possibility of infringement. The activity to be engaged must be alleged to be imminent. The resulting damage must be alleged to be very substantial, if not irreparable. Finally, facts pleaded must be cogent, precise and material. Nothing more is to be seen.  

– Hon’ble Justice C. Hari Shankar of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, Novartis AG v. Zydus Healthcare Limited, [CS(COMM) 681/2021] decided on 12.12.2022.

'The Last Word' seeks to include not only wise and witty sayings but also curiosities. These words are not of obligation but of delight. I am not alone in my refusal to believe, law is tedious. For all who escaped these percipient eyes, mea culpa maxima. History, after all, has many cunning passages, contrived corridors and issues.