Disposed

Glaxo Group Limited v. Nutraferon Private Limited and Anr.

Delhi HC15 Dec 2025CS(COMM)/736/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Suit disposed of on joint application under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC recording a settlement. Permanent injunction reliefs granted against defendant no.1; monetary and certain other reliefs dismissed as not pressed; suit withdrawn against defendant no.2; decree directed to be drawn up.

What did the court decide?

Permanent injunction decreed per plaint paras 36(a) and (b); decree to be drawn per settlement; 50% court fee refund within six weeks.

Glaxo Group Limited Vs Nutraferon Private Limited and Anr. — Delhi HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

$~55

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

CS(COMM) 736/2025 GLAXO GROUP LIMITED .....Plaintiff Through: Ms. Tanya Verma, Mr. Verdaan Anand and Ms. Ruchika Yadav, Advs. versus

¶4

NUTRAFERON PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANR

¶5

.....Defendants

¶6

Through: Mr. Kunal Khanna, Mr. Madhav Anand, Mr. Krtin Bhasin, Mr. Yashveer Singh, Mr. Udit Sharma, Mr. Kaulik Mitra, Ms. Priyanshi Gupta and Mr. Param Goel Advocates

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA O R D E R

¶9

% 15.12.2025 I.A. 31398/2025 (under Order XXIII Rule 3)

¶10

This is an application filed by the plaintiff and defendant no. 1 jointly under Order XXIII Rule 3 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for recording the settlement arrived at between the parties.

¶11

Learned counsel for the parties’ state that the terms and conditions agreed between the parties have been set out exhaustively at paragraph ‘3’(a) to (k) of the captioned application.

¶12

Learned counsel for defendant no. 1 states that defendant no. 1 has consented to the passing of a decree of permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against defendant no. 1 as prayed for in paragraph nos. ‘36’ (a)

¶13

CS(COMM) 736/2025

¶14

Page 1 of 3

¶15

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 18/12/2025 at 12:18:56

¶16

and (b) of the plaint.

¶17

3.1. He states that defendant no. 1 undertakes to comply with the obligations assumed at paragraph nos. ‘3’ (e) and (f) of the captioned application within the time stipulated therein.

¶18

Learned counsel for the plaintiff states that in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, the plaintiff has agreed to forego its claims for monetary relief as prayed for in paragraph nos. ‘36’ (d), (f) and (g) of the plaint. He states that the plaintiff is also not pressing for the relief prayed for at paragraph no. ‘36’(c) in view of no contest in this matter.

¶19

This Court has perused the terms and conditions of the settlement agreement and is satisfied that the compromise between the parties as contained in the captioned application satisfies the requirement of the Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC. The compromise contained in the captioned application is lawful, and therefore, this Court does not find any impediment in disposing of the underlying suit in terms of the aforenoted settlement.

¶20

The statement and undertakings given by the learned counsel for the parties are accepted by this Court, and the parties are held bound by the same.

¶21

Accordingly, in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties. The reliefs claimed at paragraph nos. ‘36’ (a) and (b) of the plaint are granted in favour of the plaintiff and against defendant no. 1.

¶22

The relief claim in paragraph no. ‘36’(e) will be complied with by defendant no. 1 in terms of the conditions stipulated in the compromise application.

¶23

The reliefs claimed by the plaintiff in paragraph nos. ‘36’(c), (d), (f) and (g) of the plaint are dismissed as not pressed.

CS(COMM) 736/2025

Page 2 of 3

The registry is directed to draw up a decree in terms of this order. The settlement agreement shall form part of the decree.

¶28

Defendant no. 2

¶29

Learned counsel for the plaintiff states that for the reasons stated in the application, the plaintiff is withdrawing the reliefs prayed for against defendant no. 2.

¶30

The said submission is taken on record, and the suit is dismissed as withdrawn vis-à-vis defendant no. 2.

¶31

Refund of Court Fees

¶32

Learned counsel for the plaintiff requests a refund of Court fees in view of the settlement arrived between the parties.

¶33

Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, the registry is directed to refund 50% Court Fee in favour of the plaintiff within six [6] weeks, in accordance with law. The said direction has been passed having regard to Sections 16 and 16A of the Court Fees Act, 1870.

¶34

Pending applications are disposed of.

¶35

All future dates stand cancelled.

¶36

Interim orders, if any, stand merged into the final decree.

¶37

The digitally signed copy of this order, duly uploaded on the official website of the Delhi High Court, www.delhihighcourt.nic.in, shall be treated as a certified copy of the order for the purpose of ensuring compliance. No physical copy of order shall be insisted by any authority/entity or litigant.

¶38

MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J

¶39

DECEMBER 15, 2025/ msh/aa

¶40

CS(COMM) 736/2025

¶41

Page 3 of 3

¶42

Glaxo Group Limited v. Nutraferon Private Limited and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Glaxo Group Limited v. Nutraferon Private Limited 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

Incyte Holdings Corporation & Ors. Vs Cdymax (India) Pharma Private Limited

Cadbury Uk Limited & Anr. Vs Deepesh Bajaj & Anr.

Ram Roop Singh Trading as M/S Durga Trading Co. Vs Girjesh Singh Trading as M/S Murli Trading Co.

Ultratech Cement Limited & Anr. Vs Sarbjeet Arora Trading as Lovely Sales Corporation

Amritsar Haveli Cuisines Private Limited Vs Surjeet Kaur & Anr.

Amit Kumar Garg and Another Vs Venkat Goenka and Others

Brijesh Kumar Jain Vs Venkat Goenka & Anr.

Hero Investcorp Private Limited & Anr. Vs Ashok Kumar

Incyte Holdings Corporation & Ors. Vs Cdymax (India) Pharma Private Limited

Cryomass Llc Vs Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs

Cadbury Uk Limited & Anr. Vs Deepesh Bajaj & Anr.

Dcm Shriram Limited Vs Mr Arvind Kumar & Anr.

Mobile Telesystems Pjsc & Anr. Vs Mahesh Bhatti & Ors.

Glaxo Group Limited Vs Manoj Agarwal and Anr.