MANU/SC/0027/2019

Equivalent Citation: AIR2019SC 559, 2019(2)BomC R360, 2019(4) C HN (SC ) 91, 123(1)C WN290, 2019(5)MhLj534, 2019(77)PTC 258(SC ),
2019(1)SC ALE234, (2019)3SC C 381, 2019 (2) SC J 82, 2019(1)UC 31, (2019)2WBLR(SC )11

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal Nos. 4616-4617 of 2018, Civil Appeal No. 188 of 2019 (Arising out of SLP
(C) No. 19411 of 2018), Civil Appeal Nos. 189-190 of 2019 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos.
16479-16480 of 2018) and Civil Appeal Nos. 191-192 of 2019 (Arising out of SLP (C)
Nos. 19409-19410 of 2018)
Decided On: 08.01.2019
Appellants: Monsanto Technology LLC and Ors.
Vs.
Respondent: Nuziveedu Seeds Ltd. and Ors.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Rohinton Fali Nariman and Navin Sinha, JJ.
Counsels:
For Appearing Parties: Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Kapil Sibal, Sanjiv
Sen, Arvind P. Datar, K.V. Viswanathan, Shyam Divan, Jayant Bhushan, Krishnan
Venugopal, Rana Mukherjee, N.K. Kaul, Sr. Advs., Pravin Anand, Mahesh Agarwal, Rishi
Agrawala, Archana Shankar, Dhruv Anand, Shrawan Chopra, Karan Luthra, Vishnu
Tallapragada, Shubham Kulshrestha, Adarsh Ramanujan, R.V. Prabhat, Udita Patro,
Shruti Arora, Neeti Wilson, Azeem Samuel, Avishkar Singhvi, Gitika Suri, E.C. Agrawala,
R.N. Karanjawala, Ruby Singh Ahuja, Deepti Sarin, Sanjeet Ranjan, Vibhav Mittal, Manik
Karanjawala, Advs. for Karanjawala & Co., Swikriti Singhania, Sayan Ray, Anindita Mitra,
Soumo Palit, Chaitanya Mehta, Diya Kapur, Essenese Obhan, Abhushek Saket, Neha
Khanduri, Rishabh Sharma, Sugandha Batra, Raghav Anand, Vrinda Bhandari, Feroz Ali,
Ketan Paul, Reeja Varghese, Tushar Bhushan, Ranjan Kumar Pandey, Sandeep Bisht, Liz
Mathew, Jitendra Kumar, Ram Krishna, Aditya Dhar, Anuj Tiwari, Rahul Kumar, Ritwik
Sahay, Aditya Sharma, Praneet Pranav, Ankita Chaudhary Rathi, Santosh Kumar,
Nachiketa Joshi, Gunjan Singh, Satya Mitra, Amar Dave, P.S. Sudheer, Rishi Maheshwari,
Anne Mathew, Pooja Katara, Aparna Kareer, Senthil Jagadeesan, Sonakshi Malhan, Suriti
Chowdhary, Mrinal Kanwar, Satya Vikram, Shahana Farah, Manish Madhukar, Rahul
Dubey, M. Haque, Chitral Gambhir, Pranav Gupta, Lekha V.G., Manisha Singh, Abhai
Pandey, Devanshu Sajlan, Sanyat Lodha, Deepak Joshi and Akash Lamba, Advs.
Case Category:
MERCANTILE LAWS, COMMERCIAL TRANSACTIONS INCLUDING BANKING - TRADE
MARKS/COPY RIGHTS/PATENTS/DESIGN ACT
JUDGMENT
Navin Sinha, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The Appellants/Plaintiffs in Civil Appeal Nos. 4616-4617 of 2018 instituted Civil Suit
(Comm) No. 132 of 2016 seeking permanent injunction against the Defendants from
using the trademark "BOLGARD" and "BOLGARD II" brand cotton technology, violating
the registered patent No. 214436 of the Plaintiffs, and also to further restrain the

30-09-2021 (Page 1 of 9) www.manupatra.com Symbiosis Law School

Defendants from selling and or using seeds/hybrid seeds bearing the patented
technology, infringing the registered patent of the Plaintiffs, along with rendition of
accounts. The parties shall, for convenience, be referred to by their position in the
original suit.
3 . The Plaintiffs pursuant to their patent rights had entered into a sub-licence
agreement dated 21.02.2004 with the Defendants for an initial period of ten years. The
agreement entitled the Defendants to develop "Genetically Modified Hybrid Cotton
Planting Seeds" with help of the Plaintiffs' technology and to commercially exploit the
same subject to the limitations prescribed in the agreement. The agreement also
provided for payment of licence fee/trait value by the Defendants, for use of the
Plaintiffs' patented technology. The agreement after extension was ultimately terminated
by the Plaintiffs on 14.11.2015 due to disputes regarding payment of licence fee/trait
value in view of subsequent price control regime introduced by the State, and to which
the Defendants required adherence by the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs filed an application
for injunction Under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter
referred to as 'the Code"), to restrain the Defendants from using their registered trade
mark in violation of the registered patent during the pendency of the suit in view of the
termination of the agreement.
4. The Defendants in their written statement inter alia contended that their rights were
protected under the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers' Rights Act, 2001
(hereinafter referred to as 'the PPVFR Act'). The suit patent was bad because claims 1-
24 were "process claims" concerning genetic engineering or biotechnology method to
insert "Nucleic Acid Sequence" (NAS) into a plant cell as in claim 25-27 practiced in
laboratory conditions, unlike the complete biological process adopted by the
Defendants. The NAS was a chemical composition incapable of reproducing itself and
was thus not a micro-organism. Only on insertion into a plant, a living organism, it
imparts Bt. trait (insect resistance) to the living organism. The Defendants also filed a
counter claim No. 51 of 2016 seeking revocation of the patent Under Section 64 of the
Act, as being in violation of Section 3(j) of the Patents Act (hereinafter referred to as
"the Act") in respect of plants and seeds that contained DNA sequences, denying any
infringement.
5. The learned Single Judge on 28.03.2017, while deciding the Plaintiffs' application for
injunction, observed that the issues arising in the suit necessarily required formal proof,
particularly expert opinion, which in complicated matters like that of patent were crucial
for ascertaining the breadth of the monopoly granted by the specifications of a patent
claim. The nature and extent of the patent claim was more properly a matter to be
examined after pleadings were complete and evidence adduced on the issues arising,
which did not merit comments at the stage of interim injunction. Considering the
existing patent registered Under Section 48 of the Act, it was ordered that during the
pendency of the suit, the parties shall remain bound by their respective obligations
under the sub-licence agreement and that the licence fee/trait value payable by the
Defendant shall be governed by the laws in force. The learned Single Judge
simultaneously only issued notice on the counter claim No. 51 of 2016. The order of
injunction dated 28.03.2017, therefore did not deal with or consider the counter claim.
It was prima facie observed that the Defendants having had the advantage of a sub-
licence ever since 2004, appeared unjustified in contending that they were not bound by
the obligations under the agreement in view of the claimed statutory protections vis-a-
vis the suit patent or the registered trademarks. Prima facie opining that the termination
of the sub-licence agreement by the Plaintiffs on 14.11.2015 appeared unjustified in
view of the statutory price restrictions, the termination was held not to be of any

30-09-2021 (Page 2 of 9) www.manupatra.com Symbiosis Law School

consequence.
6 . Aggrieved, both the Plaintiffs and the Defendants preferred appeals. The Division
Bench dismissed the Plaintiffs' appeal upholding the Defendants' contention with respect
to patent exclusion Under Section 3(j) of the Act and that the Plaintiffs were at liberty to
claim registration under the PPVFR Act, as the two Acts were not complementary, but
exclusive in the case of all processes and products falling Under Section 3(j) of the Act.
Consequentially, the Defendants' counter claim succeeded. The suit was, however,
permitted to continue with regard to the claim for damages and other reliefs. The
Plaintiffs were required to continue with their obligations under the sub-licence
agreement including payment of licence fee/trait value by the Defendants in accordance
with law.
7 . We have heard learned senior Counsel Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Sri Kapil Sibal,
Sri Neeraj Kaul, Sri K.V. Vishwanathan, Sri Arvind P. Datar, Sri Jayant Bhushan, Sri
Krishnan Venugopal, Sri Shyam Divan and Sri Sanjiv Sen, and learned Counsel Sri
Prashant Bhushan and Ms. Anandita Mitra on behalf of the parties.
8 . Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi contended that the Plaintiffs' suit was for injunction
restraining infringement of an existing and valid patent. The lack of patentability was
never an issue in the suit. The Defendants argued lack of patentability to invalidate the
primary issue relating to infringement only. The counter claim for revocation of the
patent as unpatentable, was neither argued nor adjudicated by the learned Single
Judge. Only notice was issued on the counter claim bearing No. 51 of 2016 while
counter claim bearing No. 50 of 2016 challenging the termination of sub-licence
agreement was withdrawn. The issue for existence of the patent, patent exclusion Under
Section 3(j) of the Act was a heavily mixed question of law and facts requiring formal
proof and expert evidence, to be considered at the hearing of the suit, as rightly
observed by the Single Judge. The Defendants in their memo of appeal themselves
contended that the issue regarding existence of the patent and/or its revocation could
not have been decided summarily by the learned Single Judge as these were matters
which required evidence and could be adjudicated only at the final trial of the suit. The
Plaintiffs' claims were under 25-27 only. The process claims 1-24 was never an issue in
consideration before the Single Judge and yet the Division Bench delved into the same
and held the process claims to be bad also.
9. The Plaintiffs had never consented to a summary adjudication regarding the validity
of its patent. The consent referred to by the Division Bench, had been given only to
decide whether the Plaintiffs' patent had been infringed or not, as also the scope of the
patent, so as to allow or disallow the relief of injunction. It is incomprehensible that the
Plaintiffs holding a valid registered patent under the Act nonetheless would have agreed
to a summary consideration and validation/invalidation of the patent. The patent
comprises of a DNA construct or nucleotide sequence in claim 25-27 comprising of
three different components, i.e. (i) a promoter (ii) a man-made gene for the production
of Cry2Ab5-endotoxin and, (iii) a third component for the production of a transit
peptide 6. The DNA construct so created did not exist in nature and upon insertion into
a plant confers insect tolerant trait. A plant is next produced as a "fusion protein" which
comprises the Cry2Ab S-endotoxin 7 bonded with the transit peptide. The subject patent
claims use of bacillus thuringiensis strain and the development of two genes designated
Cry2Aa and Cry2Ab. Each gene sequence is known for its ability to synthesize proteins
with pesticidal properties. The NAS is not a living organism but a chemical created in a
laboratory. The "event" which is the positioning of the NAS at a unique location in the
genome of a plant cell is a separate, subsequent and entirely different invention for

30-09-2021 (Page 3 of 9) www.manupatra.com Symbiosis Law School

which the Plaintiffs have obtained a different patent No. 232681 and which is not the
subject matter of the present suit. In this case, the invention is the NAS and the target
of the invention is its use in a plant cell. The property of the NAS is what makes the
plant produce and localize the toxin protein in a specific location in the plant cell so as
to make the toxin protein present throughout the plant, in pesticidal effective levels and
still produce agronomically stable plants. Relying on "Marker-Assisted Recurrent
Backcrossing in Cultivar Development" by Guoyou et. al, it was submitted a NAS
gene once inserted into a plant, was removable and did not become part of the plant
genome, to lose its patentable characteristics. These were matters to be considered in
the suit on basis of expert evidence.
1 0 . Shri Vishwanathan and Shri Datar for the Defendant have adopted directly and
mutually contradictory stands by contending that claims 25-27 are product claims,
namely parts of a plant, and subsequently that the said claims are essentially biological
process claims. Claims 1-24 are not excluded Under Section 3(j) being essentially
biological processes as there exists significant human intervention. Dr. Singhvi very
fairly admitted that he was not in a position to support the termination of the sub-
licence agreement and that the Plaintiffs' claims for licence fee/trait value had to be in
accordance with the statutory price regime. The seeds from the Plaintiffs' patented
technology were the highest selling compared to similar other seeds. The Plaintiffs have
no intention to sue any Indian farmer for violation of patent. It was lastly submitted that
either this Court may remand the entire matter for adjudication of the patent issue and
infringement or decide the patent issue and then remand the suit for other issues.
1 1 . Shri Kapil Sibbal contended that a chemical/gene/DNA construct is not a plant
variety, and is not eligible for protection under the PPVFR Act. A gene cannot be a plant
variety and it would be denied such registration on account of lack of fulfillment of the
conditions precedent in Section 2(za) read with Sections 14 and 15. A gene cannot be a
"plant grouping", "within a single botanical taxon of the lowest rank", which in simple
terms means that it cannot belong to the lowest rank of a plant, namely a species. The
PPVFR Act came into effect from 2007 and in the last 11 years, no infringement action
has been filed under the same or injunction obtained. The department of bio-technology
on their official website has acknowledged the role agro-biotechnology has to play in
feeding billion plus mouths in this country and the role that "novel genes" can play to
deal with biotic and abiotic stresses, enhance productivity and nutritional quality.
1 2 . Sri Neeraj Kaul submitted that the patented NAS is not the creation of any
biological process. The correct admixture of the promoter, the man made gene for the
production of Cry2Ab endotoxin and the 3rd component for the production of the transit
peptide leading to the DNA construct, is entirely the creation of the human intervention.
The Division Bench wrongly holds the invention to be a plant variety. It is only plant
varieties and seeds which are covered by the PPVFR Act. The Patent Act and the PPVFR
Act are mutually exclusively.
13. Shri Vishwanathan leading the arguments on behalf of the Defendants submitted
that no patent rights can be exercised with respect to genetically modified cotton
planting seeds being developed by the Defendants through conventional breeding
methods and sold to the farmers. If the patent rights of the Plaintiffs be accepted, then
the regime provided under the PPVFR Act for plant intellectual property with respect to
genetically modified plants would be entirely defeated. The Plaintiffs' claim was
essentially of a "breeder" for developing a variety and therefore its donor seed
containing the NAS was registrable under the PPVFR Act and they were entitled to
benefit sharing Under Section 26 after such registration. No patent could be granted in a

30-09-2021 (Page 4 of 9) www.manupatra.com Symbiosis Law School

plant, or part of a plant, Under Section 3(j) of the Act. Patent infringement analysis
involves two steps: the proper construction of asserted claims and the determination as
to whether the product infringes the asserted claim as properly construed. The Plaintiffs
claim to patent was never for a chemical sequence in a vial. The Plaintiffs' claimed
invention was only an improvement on prior art where it claimed that it had found a
way to have a plant produce a higher level of expression of the endotoxin protein by
localizing it to the plastid thereby reducing insect tolerance and at the same time
producing morphologically normal plants. The Plaintiffs were also precluded from
claiming rights on the genetically modified Bt. cotton seeds on basis of prosecution
history estoppel. The order of the Division bench being based on consent; it is not open
for the Plaintiffs to contend to the contrary now.
14. Shri Datar submitted that the "product" in claim 25-27 for NAS is a chemical is
false, because any chemical that is inserted into a plant is not capable of being passed
on to the seeds of that plant and to the future progeny as the chemical will be
metabolized by the plant itself and will never be transmitted to its seeds. Further, the
NAS, by the wording of claims 25-27 itself, is a plant gene which is meant to be an
inherent, intrinsic and integral part of the plant as it exists at the sub cellular level. The
cell after transformation with the gene through the biological process of tissue culture
results in a transgenic plant that produces seeds having the essential characteristic of
these transgenic plants. Therefore, claims 25 to 27 even if it represents merely a "gene"
will manifest as an inseparable and inheritable part of a plant and cannot be patented.
The NAS gene inserted into the plant becomes an inseparable part of the plant at the
sub-cellular level by an irreversible biological process. It exists in every cell of the
transformed plant. It not only expresses in the plant to produce endotoxin but also
inherits into progeny plants in perpetuity. It does not result in a "product" which can be
put into a vial and sold as such. The claims must be construed so as to give an effective
meaning to each of them but the specifications and the claims must be looked at and
construed together.
15. Shri Jayant Bhushan submitted that the Plaintiffs did not bring the NAS in a vial and
but imported plants seeds containing NAS. These seeds were not protected by Patent.
Indian seed companies were given donor seeds which already had the NAS/Bt. Trait
integrated in them and was capable of germination. What the Indian Seed companies do
is to cross one of the Plaintiffs' plants with the plants of their proprietary Indian
varieties suitable for cultivation in India, to develop a third/new cross-bred cotton
variety which would have the Bt. trait from Plaintiffs' variety so as to resist Bollworm
and other traits from their own developed varieties. Since the Indian Seed Companies
do not use the NAS in isolation nor do they use the method of introducing the NAS into
the plant through the method described in the patent, there is no infringement of the
patent. NAS is an essentially biological process in which the patented product is neither
separately used nor the patented process of insertion into a plant is used, the NAS is
not being made or used by the Indian Seed Companies. The patent on a gene sequence
in a test tube cannot negate/undo the important researchers' and farmers' rights Under
Sections 30 and 39 of the PPVFR Act. Section 39 relates to Farmer's Rights entitling him
to save, use, sow and re-sow his farmed produce including a registered variety
protected under the Act. It was lastly submitted that if the Court is not inclined to
uphold the order of the Division Bench, the matter may be remanded to the Division
Bench for fresh hearing on the injunction matter because the correctness of the
injunction order dated 28.03.2017 never came to be tested or considered by the
Division Bench.
16. Shri Divan submitted that that there is no inventive step in the Plaintiffs' patent

30-09-2021 (Page 5 of 9) www.manupatra.com Symbiosis Law School

claim, until the artificial NAS is inserted into a plant so that the plant starts producing
the delta endotoxin which is toxic to the Bollworms. There is no capability of industrial
application of the NAS except to become part of a plant and to develop a transgenic
plant. The threshold requirements of an invention in terms of the patents Act are
missing until the implant stage. The inventive qualities begin when the NAS is inserted
in a plant cell and not before that stage. Once, the NAS is inserted in a plant cell, the
exclusion Under Section 3(j) applies and the PPVFR Act becomes operative.
17. Shri Venugopal submitted that a conjoint reading of Section 2(j) and Section 3(c)
of the Act makes it clear that it excludes patentability both of transgenic plants
(invented through recombinant gene technology in the laboratory) and those invented
through conventional breeding techniques even where a new plant, variety or species is
initially created through genetic manipulation, to the extent that the subsequent
production or propagation of the plant, variety or species is done through "an
essentially biological process", the biological process would not be patentable Under
Section 3(j) of the Act. Even if patent exclusion Under Section 3(j) was not applicable,
still the patent claim could never permit Plaintiffs to claim the right to prevent farmers
from making, using, offering for sale or selling plants or seeds of the cotton plant that
contain Bt. gene. The patent of an artificial gene and the process for inserting it into the
genome of a plant, will not entitle the exercise of rights Under Section 48 of the Act in
respect of a plant that contains the artificial gene on which it has a patent. The
protection Under Section 48 of the Act is capable of being exercised against other
biotechnology companies that seek to replicate the Bt. gene product or the process of
insertion of that gene in the genome of the cotton plant. Both the Patents Act and PPVFR
Act have a link that is to protect the interests of the farmers so that they are not
burdened by exorbitant rates of seeds.
18. Shri Prashant Bhusan, Shri Sanjiv Sen, and Smt. Anandita Mitra on behalf of the
interveners submitted that the NAS is not "capable of industrial application" unless it
becomes a part of the plant cell where it is expressed by the plant cell through
essentially biological processes of transcription, translation, and replication, to produce
the desired protein. The Biodiversity Act which prohibits the "use" of any biological
resources occurring in India for commercial utilisation and which includes genes used
for improving crops and livestock through genetic intervention necessitates prior
permission from the National Bio Diversity Authority which has not been taken by the
Plaintiffs. The NAS only adds a trait to a plant leading to development of a transgenic
variety creating donor seeds. The seeds are not patentable Under Section 3(j) of the Act
though the Plaintiffs may be entitled for benefit sharing under the provision of the
PPVFR Act as defined Under Section 2(h) of the PPVFR Act. The claim of the Plaintiffs
has ramifications beyond the immediate parties.
1 9 . We have considered the respective submissions made on behalf of the parties.
Though very elaborate submissions have been made with regard to facts and the
technical processes involved in the patent in question, the provisions of the Act, the
PPVFR Act and a large volume of case laws for construction of patents, the obligations
under the World Trade Organisation (WTO), General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade
(GATT), Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) Agreement,
leading to the Patents Amendment Act, 2002 on 25.06.2002, in view of nature of the
order proposed to be passed, we do not consider it necessary to deal with the same at
this stage, and leave open all questions of facts and law to be urged for consideration in
appropriate proceedings.
20. The patent claims 1-24 are with regard to the processes while claims 25-27 are

30-09-2021 (Page 6 of 9) www.manupatra.com Symbiosis Law School

with regard to the chemical product called NAS. According to the Plaintiffs, the latter
was a man-made DNA construct that did not exist in nature and did not otherwise form
part of a plant existing in nature. The DNA construct was inserted into a plant which
confers the trait of insect tolerance to the plant. It comprises of three different
components i.e. (i) A promoter, (ii) A gene for the production of Cry2Ab 5-endotoxin
and (iii) a third component for the production of a transit peptide. Of these three,
Cry2Ab 5-endotoxin is stated to be a man-made gene. This nucleic acid sequence is
then inserted into the cell of the plant at a particular location resulting in the production
of "a fusion protein" which comprises the Cry2Ab 5-endotoxin 7 bonded with transit
peptide. The production of a fusion protein is critical in this respect for the technology
to be effected in plants. The bacillus thuringiensis strain does not produce such a fusion
protein. It is the Plaintiffs' claim that it is only its technology that allows a cotton plant
to produce the Cry2Ab 8-endotoxin protected inter-alia by claims 25-27 of the patented
inventions. The subject patent claims the use of Bacillus thuringiensis strain and
development of two genes designated Cry2Aa and Cry2Ab. Each gene sequence is
known for its ability to synthesize proteins with pesticidal properties.
2 1 . It is the contention of the Defendants apart from the unpatentability of the
Plaintiff's claim, they have not violated patented rights, if any, as:
a) Nuziveedu sowed seeds of their proprietary cotton varieties alongside the
Transgenic Bt. Cotton seed.
b) The Transgenic Bt. Cotton seed and the Nuziveedu's varieties seed yielded
different plants, which were cross-pollinated at the flowering stage.
c) The cotton fruits from the Nuziveedu's cotton varieties had cotton seeds,
which were carrying the proprietary hybrid ("Bt. cotton hybrids")
d) Nuziveedu conducted extensive agronomic evaluation trials of newly
developed Bt. Cotton Hybrids to ascertain their utility to the farmers.
e) Nuziveedu obtained the approval of the GEAC under the Environment
(Protection) Act, 1986 for the commercial release of each new Bt. Cotton Hybrid
which were considered satisfactory after internal evaluation, and thereafter
produced in mass scale and distributed to the farmers.
2 2 . Manifestly, the counter claim of the Defendants was never considered by the
learned Single Judge as only notice had been issued on the same. The Plaintiffs had
preferred an appeal against the nature of the injunctive relief with regard to the issue of
licence fee/trait value, now conceded by the Plaintiffs. We see no reason to reject the
submission of Dr. Singhvi that it stands to reason why the Plaintiffs would have
consented to a summary adjudication of an existing patent and risk losing the same
without any merit adjudication. The Defendants themselves had contended in their
appeal that the issues were complicated requiring expert evidence to be considered in a
full-fledged trial. The Division Bench therefore ought to have confined its adjudication
to the question whether grant of injunction was justified or unjustified in the facts and
circumstances of the case. The Division Bench ought not to have examined the counter
claim itself usurping the jurisdiction of the Single Judge to decide unpatentability of the
process claims 1-24 also in the summary manner done. Summary adjudication of a
technically complex suit requiring expert evidence also, at the stage of injunction in the
manner done, was certainly neither desirable or permissible in the law. The suit
involved complicated mixed questions of law and facts with regard to patentability and
exclusion of patent which could be examined in the suit on basis of evidence.

30-09-2021 (Page 7 of 9) www.manupatra.com Symbiosis Law School

23. Section 64 of the Act provides for revocation of patent based on a counter claim in
a suit. It necessarily presupposes a valid consideration of the claims in the suit and the
counter claim in accordance with law and not summary adjudication sans evidence by
abstract consideration based on text books only. The Code of Civil Procedure provides a
detailed procedure with regard to the manner in which a suit instituted Under Section 9,
including a counter claim has to be considered and adjudicated. The Code mandates a
procedure by settlement of issues, examination and cross examination of witnesses by
the parties, including discovery/inspection of documents, culminating in the hearing of
the suit and decree. A suit can be disposed of at the initial stage only on an admission
inter alia Under Order 12 Rule 6 or when the parties are not in issue Under Order 16
Rule 1 and the other grounds mentioned therein, none of which are applicable herein.
We are therefore satisfied that the Division Bench ought not to have disposed of the suit
in a summary manner by relying on documents only, extracted from the public domain,
and not even filed as exhibits in the suit, much less examination of expert witnesses, in
the facts of the present case. There is no gain saying that the issues raised were
complicated requiring technological and expert evidence with regard to issues of
chemical process, biochemical, biotechnical and microbiological processes and more
importantly whether the nucleic acid sequence trait once inserted could be removed
from that variety or not and whether the patented DNA sequence was a plant or a part
of a plant etc. are again all matters which were required to be considered at the final
hearing of the suit.
24. The manner in which a suit instituted Under Section 9 of the Code is required to be
dealt with and decided, fell for consideration in Alka Gupta v. Narender Kumar
Gupta, MANU/SC/0793/2010 : (2010) 10 SCC 141, observing as follows:
27. The Code of Civil Procedure is nothing but an exhaustive compilation-cum-
enumeration of the principles of natural justice with reference to a proceeding
in a court of law. The entire object of the Code is to ensure that an adjudication
is conducted by a court of law with appropriate opportunities at appropriate
stages. A civil proceeding governed by the Code will have to be proceeded with
and decided in accordance with law and the provisions of the Code, and not on
the whims of the court. There are no short-cuts in the trial of suits, unless they
are provided by law. A civil suit has to be decided after framing issues and trial
permitting the parties to lead evidence on the issues, except in cases where the
Code or any other law makes an exception or provides any exemption.
..........
30. But where the summons have been issued for settlement of issues, and a suit is
listed for consideration of a preliminary issue, the court cannot make a roving enquiry
into the alleged conduct of the Plaintiff, tenability of the claim, the strength and validity
and contents of documents, without a trial and on that basis dismiss a suit. A suit
cannot be short-circuited by deciding issues of fact merely on pleadings and documents
produced without a trial.
31. In this case, the learned Single Judge has adjudicated and decided questions of fact
and rendered a judgment, without evidence tested by cross-examination....
25. The Division Bench ought to have confined itself to examination of the validity of
the order of injunction granted by the learned Single Judge only. But we are not
inclined to remand the matter for that purpose to the Division Bench as we are satisfied
in the facts and circumstances of the case that the nature of the injunctive relief granted

30-09-2021 (Page 8 of 9) www.manupatra.com Symbiosis Law School

by the Single Judge was in order and merits no interference during the pendency of the
suit.
26. The order of the Division Bench is set aside. The order of the Single Judge dated
28.03.2017 is restored and the suit is remanded to the learned Single Judge for
disposal in accordance with law. In view of the importance of the question involved, we
expect the parties to cooperate and facilitate the learned Single Judge in early disposal
of the suit.
27. The appeals and the intervention applications stand disposed of.
© Manupatra Information Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

30-09-2021 (Page 9 of 9) www.manupatra.com Symbiosis Law School