Shreya Gupta
On 9th June 2025, the Bombay High Court, in the case of Cadila Healthcare Ltd. V. Roche Products (India) Pvt. Ltd. And Others, ruled that a civil suit cannot be maintained solely on the basis of a future apprehension that legal proceedings might be initiated.
The judgment arose from a suit filed by Cadila Healthcare Ltd., a pharmaceutical company, against Roche (India) Pvt. Ltd. And others, seeking to restrain them from allegedly interfering with the marketing and sale of its cancer drug, Vivitra. This drug, a biosimilar to Trastuzumab originally developed by Genentech Inc. and marketed by Roche in India, had already been launched by Cadila in 2015 after Roche’s formulation patent expired in 2013.
Cadila’s main contention was that Roche had previously initiated what it called “frivolous and vexatious” legal proceedings against other Indian biosimilar manufacturers, and therefore, it feared similar action would be taken against Vivitra. Based on this apprehension, Cadila sought declaratory relief affirming its right to market Vivitra and an injunction preventing Roche from initiating any legal proceedings that might interfere with such marketing.
However, the Court found this approach legally unsustainable. Justice Abhay Ahuja, presiding over the case, observed that a suit could not be entertained merely on speculative grounds or on the apprehension that litigation might be brought in the future. He noted that the plaint failed to show any actual or imminent interference from Roche since the drug had been on the market without any hindrance for nearly a decade.
Roche, in its defense, argued that Cadila’s suit was not maintainable under Indian law and that it attempted to restrain the possibility of lawful litigation, which is expressly prohibited under Section 41(b) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. This provision prevents courts from granting injunctions to restrain individuals from initiating proceedings in courts of competent jurisdiction. Roche’s counsel also contended that Cadila’s suit was an example of strategic and misleading drafting designed to manufacture a false cause of action, especially since no real injury or interference had occurred.
Agreeing with Roche’s arguments, the Court held that Cadila’s fears were unfounded and did not constitute a valid legal injury. The Court criticized the plaint for creating only an “illusion” of a cause of action, noting that it lacked any substantial grounds or actionable rights. It concluded that since the drug had already been launched and marketed without interference, none of the reliefs sought by Cadila were relevant or could be granted. Consequently, the Court dismissed the suit in its entirety and denied Cadila’s request for a stay on the order.
The case reinforces the legal principle that courts cannot adjudicate hypothetical disputes or pre-emptively restrain lawful legal actions, especially when no actual threat or injury exists. It also affirms the strict requirements for establishing a cause of action in civil suits under Indian law, emphasizing that mere apprehension or speculative harm is insufficient to invoke the jurisdiction of the court.
Case Title: Cadila Healthcare Ltd. V. Roche Products (India) Pvt. Ltd. And Others
Case Number: Commercial Suit no. 272 of 2016
Bench: Justice Abhay Ahuja
