PAK LAW GPT — Pakistan Case Law AI justice scale emblemPAK LAW GPTCase law · Urdu & English

MERCK SHARP AND DHOME CORPORATION vs HILTON PHARMA (PRIVATE) LIMITED O — 2022 PLD 84 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Citation
2022 PLD 84 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Court
Lahore High Court
Year
2022
Reporter
PLD
Parties
MERCK SHARP AND DHOME CORPORATION vs HILTON PHARMA (PRIVATE) LIMITED O
Subject matter
Civil

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

Judgment text as reported

MERCK SHARP AND DHOME CORPORATION VS HILTON PHARMA (PRIVATE) LIMITED O. XXV, R. 1---Security for costs---Quantum, determination of---Suit for permanent injunction was filed by petitioner/plaintiff to restrain defendants/respondents from committing any infringement/ counterfeiting/imitating its rights in its registered Patent---Trial Court directed petitioner/plaintiff to deposit in cash or furnish bank guarantee equivalent to the same amount as security for costs under O. XXV, R. 1, C.P.C.---Validity---Respondent/defendant claimed in its application Rs. 1.5 million i.e. equivalent to partial claim for damages in the suit without providing any particulars of the total cost incurred and likely to be incurred by it in defending proceedings in the suit---No determination of costs incurred and likely to be incurred by respondent/ defendant was made by Trial Court---Respondent/defendant had a right to defend itself in suits filed by petitioner/plaintiff as relief sought posed serious risks to its business, which entailed incurring of costs that could not be left unsecured following the general rule---No peculiar facts and circumstances were pointed out by petitioner/plaintiff to treat its cases as an exception to general rule to avoid an order of security for costs---Application of respondent/defendant could not be outrightly dismissed in entirety---Amount of security for costs claimed by respondent/defendant in each suit instituted by plaintiff had been found to be illusory and arbitrary, however same did not preclude Trial Court from securing them under O.XXV, C.P.C. for such part of claimed amount as would reasonably cover total costs for defending such claims---High Court set aside order passed on application under O. XXV, C.P.C. and case was remanded to Trial Court for decision afresh by determining proper amount of security for costs in each case---Revision was allowed accordingly. Head Notes

Other judgments reported in 2022 PLD

Back to the case-law library · Search Pakistani case law in Urdu or English