Civil Suit Cannot Be Based On Speculative Fear Of Future Litigation: Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court has ruled that a civil suit cannot be instituted solely on the basis of a speculative fear that legal proceedings may be initiated in the future.
The pharmaceutical company Cadila Healthcare sought to preemptively restrain Roche from interfering with the marketing and sale of its cancer treatment drug, Vivitra.
A bench of Justice Abhay Ahuja dismissed the suit, holding that Cadila had failed to establish any existing legal injury or actionable cause. The Court stated that apprehension of potential interference or litigation does not amount to a valid cause of action under Indian civil procedure.
“In my view, a suit cannot be filed on the basis of an apprehension that legal proceedings would be initiated in future. In any event, the plaint does not indicate any cause of action that there will be defendants’ interference with the launch and marketing of the similar drug,” the Court observed.
The Court found that Cadila’s suit rested on mere speculation and lacked any concrete allegation of interference by Roche.
“Admittedly, the suit rests entirely on a mere apprehension that the defendants No.1 to 3 might interfere with the drug’s launch and marketing. A suit cannot be sustained on such speculative grounds, especially when the plaintiff’s drug was not only launched in 2015, but is also being marketed and sold since 2015 without any interference,” the Court remarked.
The High Court accepted Roche’s contentions, stating, “The plaint merely gives an impression of cause without substance creating an illusion of cause of action and does not really disclose any cause of action.”
The Court added that since Cadila’s drug had already been launched and was being sold without challenge, there was no longer any existing threat or basis for the reliefs sought in the suit.
“If none of the remedies sought in the plaint can be granted, and the suit itself is based only on an apprehension that no longer exists because the plaintiff has already launched its drug without any interference from Roche, then the case does not reveal a valid cause of action.”
The Court held that the suit failed to disclose any actionable right and was barred by law. The entire suit was dismissed, and Cadila’s request for a stay on the judgment was denied.
Cause Title: Cadila Healthcare Ltd. v. Roche Products (India) Private Limited & Ors., [2025:BHC-OS:8657]
Appearances:
Applicants: Senior Advocate Veerendra Tulzapurkar, with Advocates Bijal Chhatrapati, Pratik Pawar, Shanaya Cyrus Irani, and Siddhesh S. Pradhan, instructed by J Sagar Associates.
Defendants: Senior Advocate Dr. Birendra Saraf, with Advocates Ishwar Nankani, Huzefa Khokhawala, and Abhishek Tiwari, instructed by Nankani & Associates, Advocate Rajesh Singh.
