[INTHE HIGH COURT OF DELHE AT NEW DELHT {Ordinary Original Ci Jurtcion) ano) er 2012 in .(0.8) 2475 02012 {IN THE MATTER OF: Nateo Pharma Ut, Pants Versus ‘Sharad Eashoor Defendant Sho. Particulars Pane -rpcation under Order 7 Rule 11 on behalf of the| 9 ge Defendant for rejection of plant, along. wit icin support = "0190095973592 {IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHE AT NEW DELHI (rina ori Ce reton) 1A mo Z012 cs. (05) 2075 02012 atc Pharma Ls Pint ‘Shamnad Basheer Defendant APPLICATION Oh BEHALE OF THE DEFENDANT UNDER ‘ORDER VEX RULE 13 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF C.P.C. FOR ‘THE DEFENDANT MOST RESPECTFULLY SUBMITS AS UNDER: 4. The plait has led the present sut against the defendant {for defamation and tel, permanent injunction and ether rls. 1 |sstatd thatthe plants Hable to be rejeted in accordance with the provisions of Order VII Rule 1 of the Coe of Chil Procedure, 1908, asthe plant fal to aiclose 9 cause of acton against the detencan. 2 WRROUE prejudice to the Defendant's assertion that the Instant ul lacs Jureleton and is fable to be returned on that ‘count ls stated thatthe plat falls to iciote the publication of the impugned articles within Deh as Is requred by sete tw tis noteworthy thatthe paint doesnot elcose who or whlch person or Persons "downloaded the artes at Deli, read the same and expressed shock at reports” allowing the Pint to claim that the8 8 defamation occured in all. The Painti Is therefore Hable to be reected on this ground 3. tts further submitted nat apart from mesely repreducng the various statements of the Defendant in the two impugned ales on SpieyP, the Piinttf has not made any attempt to emanstrate the flsty of thse statements, Nownere inthe sut oes the Plante cecioee a¢ to why the impugned statements are ‘obviously fle or untrue or not Based on facts or nit representative f fae comment on an existing set of facts. Is respetly stated that merely abusing to statements being cemetary mould not even prime facie make them so, especily in the face of pending contempt proceedings i elation to the very same ft (3 contained inthe impugned arc). 4 Tels stated that the Impugned statements made by the Defendant are justified beng Inthe nature of "air Comment as ts spparent trom a perusal of te writen statement. The Defendant expressed an independent academic view that was based on facts sdmtted to by the Paint and culled ut from the very same pioodings fed by the Paint. 1 is clear thatthe comments were fa, based upon fects, entraty of an aradamic nature and with no ‘male tonards the Paint herein, particulary sine the Defendant has n the past, lavished praise onthe Pant heraln for bolt compulsory leensing strateny, an aspect detaled In the writen 5. AS per Order Vil Rule 11 of CP. a plant stall be reected hart 'des not cose a cause of action’, Further, the delberate suppression of ots and statements made In supprt of the Paint by the Defendant nearer cases indicate of Pant’ mala fideIntentions. The plait ls Hale tobe Feectd on this round of tis 16, eis also noteworthy hat Spey artls deal nrctely with the varous nuances of intallecua property issues, andthe webste commands» sophatsted reaier bese heusing intel property practtoners, scedemicans, researchers and other professionals interests in Intallectus Property issues In Yl. This pplication le fled bona fde endfor the ends f justice and grave prejusce ond harm woul be caused tothe Applcant in the event the present applstion net alowed. i also submited thatthe question of ejection of pln hes tobe decided on the touchstone of Onder VII Rule 11 ofthe CPC which provides that 2 plsnt be refected i no cause of action ie ecard. In the present case, the Plant as fae to sales a cause faction and the sus Hable to be reece PRAYER: 7. In the facts ond creumstance of the present case, the letendant humbly prays tat this Hone Court 2) Reject the paint; ) Order costs In favour ofthe Defendant 1) Pass any other order this Hon'ble Court deems Re the facts ‘ad crcumstances of te presen case.es prayed accorsingly g f Me, Shamnad Basheor me oe = By Thentified Uy we,: exe — vy INTHE HIGH COURT OF DELI AT NEW DELHE (Ordinary Original Ci ursacton) LA.No, of 2012 (05) 2475 of 2012 Parma Pict ‘Sharad Basheer Defendant Affidavit of Mr. Shamnad Basheer, age about 36 years, $/0 --M. M. Basher, R/o National University of Juridical Sciences, Salt Lake, Sector 1,12 LB Block, Kolkata - 700088 1, the above named ceponent, do hereby solemnly affen and dectre a8 unde: 1. Tam the Defendant n the present matter and am conversant with the fects and crounstances of the present case, 1 am authorised and competent to smear and depose this afdav. 2 I have read the contents of the accompanying sppation Under Order 7 Rule 21 read wih Section 151 of CPC. and say that the same are tue to the best of my knowledge and derived from records maintained by me. 3. 1 say that 1 adopt the contents of the sccompanying applications part and parcel of my present affidavit asthe same are not reproduced herein forthe sake af brevity. NENT Vertes at Kolkata on this, the 12%day of December, 2012 thatthe “contents of paragraphs 1 to 3 of my above affidavit are true to my ee ea beret 3 1 9 DEC 212 Bled —INTHE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DBLHL {Ordinary Original Cl Juisdicton) LA No22948 OF 2012 1 5 (08) NO. 2475 OF 2012 INTHE MATTER OF: NATCO Pharma Ltd os Paint versus Shamnad Basheer Defendant INDEX Ne. Partienlare Page Ko, 1. Reply on Behalf of the Plaintiff tothe 16 Application fled by the Defendant under Order VIL Rule 11 read with Section 151 ‘of the Code of Cit Procedure, 1908, PLAINTIFF (Constivuted attomey) Neier? ‘THROUGH \ ‘ ‘OAURAV BARA! (COUNSEL FOR THE PLAINTIF®) GLA LAW OFFICES (€-129, 28 FLOOR LAJPAT NAGAR NEW DELHI-110024 PH: 46559494, 9810526981 areb: PLACE:1 THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DEL LA No.22948 OF 2012 1N .€3 (08) NO. 2475 OF 2012 ‘RLTHE MATTER OF: INATCO Pharma Led. Plains vERSUS ‘Shamnad Basheer Defendant REPLY ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF 70 THE ‘APPLICATION FILED BY THE DEFENDANT UNDER ORDER. ‘VIIRULE 11 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF C.P.C., 1908. Most .y SHOWETH: At the outset the plaintilf denies all averments ofthe defendant, ‘except those which are specifically admitted hereinbelow: |. That the contents of the paragraph n.1 of the aplication faze not denied tothe extent that the Plaintiff has filed the present Suit against the defendant for de’amation, ‘permanent injunction and other reliefs. Rests of the ‘contents of the paragraph under reply are incorrect, misleading and misconcsived, hence vehement denied, It is specially denied that the plaint i Uable tobe rejected {in accordance withthe provisions of Order Vil Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.1 is further denied that lint falls to disclose a cause of action agnnst the defendant. Its submited that publication of defamatorymaterial on a website is a publication sufficiently farnishing @ cause of action agsinst the defendant. ‘That the contents of the paragraph no.2 ofthe application, are incarect, misleading and misconceived, hence vehemently denied. Its denied that plant fails to disclose the publistion ofthe impugned articles within Det. Ii. further denied that paint docs not disclose who or which person or peraons downloaded the articles at Deh, read the same and expressed shock at reports allowing the lint to claim that the said defamation occured in Delhi, Its vehemently denied that plaint is able to be rejected on this ground. It is submitted tat the defamatory material was read and downloaded by the Plaintif st Delhi, Likewise, the same material was also ‘widely read by the public at Delhi, therefore, its wrong to say that there is no cause of action or that this Hon'ble CCourt has no juriedition to ty and entertain the present suit ‘That the contents of the paragraph no.3 ofthe application are incerrect, misleading and misconceived, hence vvehementy denied. It ie denied that apart from merely reproducing the various statements of the Defendant in ‘made any attempt to demonstrate the falsity o these ‘statements, It is further denied that nowhere in the Suitplaintiff disclose as to why the impugred statements are obviously fale oF untrue oF not based on facts or not representative of a fair comment on an existing set of facts. I is further denied that Plant nas merely eluded to statements being defamatory It is submitted that plaint hnas sufciently disclosed the cause of action and plain thas a good prima facie case in its favour. It is further submitted that Plaintif has mentioned in the Plain, including in paragraph 13, that defamatory statements of the Defendant are blatantly false, ‘That the contents of the paragraph no. ofthe application ‘are incorect, misleading and misconcelved, hence vehemently denied. Tt is denied that the impugned statements made by the Defendant are justified being in the nature of alr Comment. It is further denied that the Defendant expressed an independent scademic view that ‘was based on fata admitted to by the piaintff and culled ‘ut from the very same pleadings Sted bythe Plaintiffs vehemently denied that comments were fair, based upon facts, entirely of an academic nature and with no malice towards the Plaintiff herein, 1t is submitted that the ‘impugned statements of the Defendant are defamatory in nature and the same do not qualify as air Comments: ‘The same are laden with falsity and published to defame the Plaintif and also to influence the fhir trial of CS (08)2279 of 2009 by projecting the Plaintiff herein as contemaor and liar, A comment cannat be sald ao a fair comment which ia vindictive in nature an in the form of final verdict on issues yet t0 be decided by this Hontble Ccourt. The Defendant with a malafide intention pronounced his judgment pertaining to issues pending before this Hon’ble Court in CS (08) 2279 of 2009, which fare yet to be adjudicated by the Honble Court. The Defendant, by publishing the false and malicious statements, has projected the Plaintiff (Cefendant in CS (08) 2279 of 2009) as a culprit and contemnor. By publishing these defamatory statements, the Defendant ‘has maigned the hard eared reputation of the Plait. ‘That the contents of the paragraph no.5 ofthe application fare incorrect, misleading and misconceived, hence vehemently denied. It is vehemently denied that plaint oes net disclose cause of action. Ibis further denied that plaintiff has suppressed any material fact, whatsoever. I fs furtber denied that the Plaintiff has fled the present suit wita a malafide intention, Ie is farther denied that the present Suit is lable to be rejected on any ground as pleaded by the Defendant. Ite submitted that defendant has miserably failed to furnish any ground in the present ‘application and the Defendant only wants to delay the proceedings by fing such fivolous applications.6. That the contents ofthe paragraph no.é ofthe application fare incorrect, misleading end misconceived, hence vehemently denied. It ie denied that the present application has been filed with bona fide intention and for the ends of justice. It is farther denied that grave prejudice and harm would be caused to the Applicant in ‘the event the present application is not allowed. It is submitted that defendant has miserably filed to furnish ‘any ground in the present application and the Defendant nas fled the present application with @ malafide intention 1 delay the proceedings [REPLY TO THE PRAYER: 7. Im reply to the prayer clause itis eubmtted that in the facts and circumstances ag mentioned in the Plaint, replication and the present reply it is respectfully prayed that this Hontble Court may be pleased to dismiss the present application with exempary cost. Y y PLan (Connttuted attorney) ‘THROUGH sauRAV BARAT (COUNSEL FOR THE PLAINTIFF] ‘GLA LAW OFFICES 129, 290 FLOOR, LAJPAT NAGAR ‘NEW DELHI-110024 DatedIN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI ILA. No, 22988 OF 2012 1 ‘€8(08) NO. 2475 OF 2012 INTHE MATTER OF: INATCO Pharma Lid Paint versus Shamnad Basheer Defendant AFEDAWIE 1, Udaya K, 8/0 Sh. Narasimhs Reo K, Aged about 39 years, R/O 179-4, Gali No.3, 2 Floor, Tuphalakabad Extn., New Delhi, and working with the Plaintiff Company as an Executive, do hereby solemnly afr and state as under: 3.1 have reed and undersood the contents of the _tompanylng fey an the ste are tue and caret to the best of my nowledge and belief based on the records of ce fo serena Ww enone ened tH Bde ay oth 2018 that stent the shove affdait are true and dorrec: to the best of my knowledge and belie snd nothing material hasbeen concealed therefrom, ae yo