Delhi High Court
RFA(OS)(COMM)/12/2026 of INTAS PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED & ANR. Vs SANOFI on 2 September 2026
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010208412026 + RFA(OS)(COMM) 12/2026 CM APPL. 31359/2026 CM APPL. 31360/2026 CM APPL. 45096/2026 CM APPL. 45365/2026 CM APPL. 52269/2026 INTAS PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED & ANR. .....Appellants Through: Mr. Chander M. Lall, Sr. Adv. with
$~29 & 30
*
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
#
CNR No. DLHC010208412026
+
RFA(OS)(COMM) 12/2026 CM APPL. 31359/2026 CM APPL.
31360/2026 CM APPL. 45096/2026 CM APPL. 45365/2026 CM
APPL. 52269/2026
INTAS PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED & ANR.
.....Appellants
Through:
Mr. Chander M. Lall, Sr. Adv. with
Ms. Vrinda Pathak, Adv.
versus
SANOFI
.....Respondent
Through:
Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Sr Adv with Mr.
Pravin Anand, Ms. Vaishali Mittal,
Mr. Siddhant Chamola, Mr. Krisna
and Mr Jitesh P. Gupta, Advs.
30
#
CNR No. DLHC010311862026
+
RFA(OS)(COMM) 18/2026
SANOFI
.....Appellant
Through:
Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Sr Adv with Mr.
Pravin Anand, Ms. Vaishali Mittal,
Mr. Siddhant Chamola, Mr. Krisna
and Mr Jitesh P. Gupta, Advs.
versus
INTAS PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED & ANR.
.....Respondents
Through:
Mr. Chander M. Lall, Sr. Adv. with
Ms. Vrinda Pathak, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
O R D E R
% 02.09.2026
1. On the last date, Mr. Lall on behalf of the Appellant had stated that the Appellant had started manufacturing and selling the drugs under the brand name CLAVINTAS, and not CLAVIX. He further stated that Appellant wished to withdraw the appeal, as they had no intention to revert to the trademark CLAVIX.
2. He further clarified that the Appellant had not manufactured or sold any drug for clopidogrel bisultphate under the brand name CLAVIX since the date of the judgment, i.e., 28.04.2026.
3. Subsequently, an affidavit of one Mr. Mehul Pathak, dated 08.08.2026 has been filed to clarify the said position. In the affidavit, the Appellant states that packaging of the drugs under the new mark CLAVINTAS was underway, but due to operational difficulties, the packaging was not done, and hence, the drug under the brand CLAVINTAS was not sold in the market.
4. The appellant further states that the valuation of the drugs intended to be sold after the judgment of 28.04.2026 under the marks CLAVIX of INR 8.75 crores was only an approximation. The true value of the drugs is INR 4.44 crores (at the net realisation value) which corresponds to INR 6.78 crores (at MRP).
5. Without going into the merits, this statement of Mr. Mehul Pathak is taken on record. Taking into account the statement of the Appellants that they do not wish to sell drugs under the mark CLAVIX, the Appellants are permitted to withdraw the appeal.
6. Mr. Sandeep Sethi, on behalf of the Respondents, states that in view of the aforesaid, the Respondent does not wish to press the cross-appeal.
7. Accordingly, the appeal, RFA(OS)(COMM) 12/2026 and the RFA (OS) COMM 18/2026 are dismissed as withdrawn. Pending applications stand disposed of.
8. It is made clear that the appellant in RFA(OS)(COMM) 12/2026 shall satisfy the judgment/decree by paying the respondent/SANOFI within a period of four weeks. V. KAMESWAR RAO, J MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J SEPTEMBER 2, 2026/sr