Bombay High Court: No Civil Suit on Mere Apprehension of Future Litigation

In a significant ruling, the Bombay High Court has clarified that a civil suit cannot be filed simply based on a fear that legal proceedings might arise in the future. The decision came in the case Cadila Healthcare Ltd. v. Roche Products (India) Pvt. Ltd. and Others, where the Court dismissed Cadila Healthcare's lawsuit as legally unsustainable.

Background of the Case:-

Cadila Healthcare filed a civil suit in 2015, just before launching its cancer drug Vivitra, a biosimilar to Trastuzumab, which was originally developed by Genentech Inc. and marketed in India by Roche. Cadila sought a declaration of its right to market Vivitra and an injunction against Roche, preventing any interference.

Cadila's concern stemmed from Roche’s earlier legal actions against other biosimilar manufacturers. Believing that Roche might similarly target them, Cadila tried to proactively block any future litigation by Roche.

Court’s Key Observations:-

Justice Abhay Ahuja, presiding over the matter, found no merit in Cadila's claims. The Court emphasized that:

• A civil suit cannot be maintained merely on apprehension that someone might initiate legal proceedings in the future.

• The plaint did not disclose any real cause of action. It merely created an "illusion" of a legal dispute.

• Since Cadila’s drug had already been launched in 2015 and was sold without any interference, the apprehension was unfounded.

• No relief sought in the plaint could be granted as the basis of fear no longer existed.

  
  

Legal Reasoning:-

Roche’s legal team highlighted Section 41(b) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, which prohibits courts from granting injunctions that would restrain someone from initiating legal proceedings in a court not subordinate to the one issuing the injunction.

Roche argued that Cadila’s suit was a product of “clever drafting” and lacked any genuine legal grievance. The Court agreed, stating that the suit appeared to have been filed without any actionable right or legal injury.

Conclusion and Implications:-

Ultimately, the Court dismissed the suit in its entirety, holding that:

• There was no valid cause of action.

• The suit was barred by law.

• A request for a stay on the order was also denied.

• 
  

This ruling reinforces the legal principle that pre-emptive litigation based solely on speculation is not maintainable under Indian law. It also serves as a caution to litigants not to misuse the court system to secure hypothetical protections against possible future actions.

Legal Representation:

• For Cadila: Senior Advocate Veerendra Tulzapurkar with advocates Bijal Chhatrapati, Pratik Pawar, Shanaya Cyrus Irani, and Siddhesh S. Pradhan, instructed by J Sagar Associates.

• For Roche: Senior Advocate Birendra Saraf with advocates Ishwar Nankani, Huzefa Khokhawala, and Abhishek Tiwari, instructed by Nankani & Associates.

  
  

This decision is expected to guide future pharmaceutical and IP-related disputes, especially where litigation risk is perceived but not yet materialized.