Disposed

Macleods Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Tidal Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.

Bombay HC28 Mar 2016NMS/1206/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Notice of Motion regarding pre-trial documents, the Bombay High Court deemed the application unnecessary. Instead of ruling on admissibility, the Court listed the suit to mark the Plaintiff's documents directly, allowing contentions to be raised at that stage.

What did the court decide?

The Notice of Motion disposed of; the Suit listed for marking of the Plaintiff's documents on 26th April 2016; no order as to costs.

Macleods Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs Tidal… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

236-NMS1206-14.DOC

¶2

Shephali

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 1206 OF 2014

¶4

IN

¶5

SUIT NO. 2940 OF 2005

¶6

Tiddal Laboratories Pvt. Ltd.…Applicant
In the matter between
Macleods Pharmaceuticals Ltd....Plaintiff
Versus
Tiddal Laboratories Pvt. Ltd.& Anr.…Defendants

¶7

Ms. Alpana Ghone, a/w Mr. Amit Jamsandekar, i/b Ms. Sonal
Doshi & Co., for the Plaintiff.
Mr. Rashmin Khandekar, a/w Ms. Miloni Gala, i/b Mr. M. A.
Mahadgut, for the Defendants.

¶8

CORAM: G.S. PATEL, J DATED: 31st March 2016

¶9

PC:-

¶10

1.This motion is unnecessary. It seeks that certain documents
that were filed or disclosed by the Plaintiff as part of the pre-trial
procedure in the Suit, and in compliance with Rule 172 of the
Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules, be “rejected” as
irrelevant or inadmissible.

¶11

1 of 2

¶12

236-NMS1206-14.DOC

¶13

2.Without going into the question of maintainability of this
application in view of the Original Side Rules, I believe it would be
appropriate and probably more efficient to take up the Suit itself for
marking the Plaintiff’s documents. All the contentions raised by the
Defendants can be addressed at that time.

¶14

3. List the Suit for marking of the Plaintiff’s documents on 26th April 2016 at the end of the supplementary board.

¶15

4.The Notice of Motion is disposed of in these terms. There
will be no order as to costs.

¶16

(G. S. PATEL, J.)

¶17

2 of 2

Macleods Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Tidal Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Macleods Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Tidal Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ashalata H. Mhatre Vs Chitra G. Vaidya and and Ors. K. a. Mhatre and Anr.

Mr.Mahesh Jethalal Rathod Vs Mr.Girish Jethalal Rathod and Anr.

Bal Asha Trust Vs Juan Jose Sanchez De Andres Spanish and Anr.

Maganlal Savani and International Film Distributors Pvt. Ltd. Vs Gurudutt Films Combine and 3 Ors.

Gufic Pvt. Ltd. and Gufic Biosciences Ltd. Vs Vasu Healthcare Pvt. Ltd.

Ras Resorts and Apart Hotels Ltd. Vs Ras Resorts and 2 Ors.