Facts
This case involves a patent dispute between two companies in the healthcare field. The plaintiffs, Helsinn Healthcare SA and another party, filed a lawsuit against the defendant, Hetero Healthcare Limited. The main claim was that the defendant was infringing on the plaintiffs’ registered patent number 426553 by selling a product called “NETUPIN.” The plaintiffs asked the court for a permanent order to stop the defendant from selling or promoting this product, along with requests for money damages, an accounting of profits, and handing over any infringing items. The lawsuit deals with medicinal or pharmaceutical products, and it touches on complex technology, including references to prior inventions that the defendant used in its defense. The written statement from the defendant was long, running to 81 pages, and relied on 12 earlier documents to argue against the patent claim.
Procedural Details
The lawsuit started when the plaintiffs filed their complaint, and it first came before the court on April 30, 2024. On that day, the court gave a temporary order stopping the defendant from selling the product until the case could be heard more fully. The complaint was then officially registered as a suit, and a notice was sent to the defendant, who received it on May 21, 2024. The defendant filed its defense document, known as a written statement, on August 16, 2024, but this was late because the rules require it within 30 days of receiving the notice, with a possible extension up to 120 days in some cases. Since it was delayed, the defendant had to ask the court for permission to accept it late. On August 23, 2024, a court officer called the Joint Registrar allowed this delay but made the defendant pay 3,000 rupees as a penalty. The defendant paid this amount on August 30, 2024. After that, the plaintiffs filed their replication on October 5, 2024, along with a request to excuse a 13-day delay in filing it. The court had to decide on this request under a rule from the Delhi High Court that sets time limits for such replies.
Dispute
The main disagreement was about when the clock starts ticking for the plaintiffs to file their replication. The rules of the Delhi High Court say that a replication should be filed within 30 days of receiving the written statement, and the court can extend this by up to 15 more days if there is a good reason, but no longer than that. The defendant argued that the plaintiffs received the written statement by email on August 16, 2024, so the 30-day period ended on September 15, 2024, and even with the extra 15 days, it ended on September 30, 2024. Since the replication came on October 5, 2024, the defendant said it was too late and should not be allowed. The plaintiffs said the time should start from August 23, 2024, when the court officially accepted the late written statement, or even from August 30, 2024, when the penalty was paid. Using that starting point, the 30 days ended on September 22, 2024, and the full 45 days ended on October 7, 2024, making their filing on October 5 timely. They argued that until the court accepts a late defense, there is no need to reply to it, so the time should not start earlier.
Reasoning
The court looked closely at the rule in question, which is Rule 5 of Chapter VII from the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018. This rule says the replication must be filed within 30 days of receiving the written statement, and if the court sees a good reason like something unavoidable stopping the filing on time, it can give up to 15 more days, but not beyond that. The rule also says the plaintiff must pay some costs for the extension, and if no replication is filed even then, the court will decide what to do. An advance copy must be sent to the defendant. The court explained that this rule is meant to keep cases moving quickly and avoid delays, but it needs to be applied fairly. The judge noted that in normal cases where the defense is filed on time, the 30 days start from when the plaintiff gets it. But here, the defense was late, so it only became official when the court allowed the delay.
To support this view, the court discussed several past decisions. First, it referred to SNS Products Pvt. Ltd. v. Ijaz Uddin, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 787. In that case, the court said that when a written statement is filed late and only accepted after excusing the delay, the time for replication starts from the date it is taken on record. The reasoning was simple: if the court rejects the late defense, there is nothing to reply to, so it makes no sense to start the clock earlier. The judge in SNS Products explained that the Division Bench in an earlier case, Ram Sarup Lugani v. Nirmal Lugani & Ors., 2020 SCC OnLine Del 2621, had ruled that the 45-day limit is strict and cannot be extended beyond that, but it did not address when the period starts in cases of late filings. So, SNS Products filled that gap by saying the start date is when the defense is officially accepted.
The court also discussed Aroti Sarkar & Anr. v. Ashok Sarkar & Ors., order dated December 5, 2023 in CS(OS) 823/2022. There, the defense was accepted only if costs were paid, and since the costs were not paid yet, the time for replication had not even started. The judge agreed with SNS Products and said payment of costs is a condition for the defense to count, so the replication time begins after that. Similarly, in Parmeet Singh Anand v. Subhash Chand Aggarwal, order dated August 29, 2024 in CS(COMM) 824/2022, the court held that the replication period starts from when the written statement is taken on record after condoning the delay. The same idea was followed in Tata Sons v. Marvel Ltd., order dated December 19, 2024 in CS(COMM) 724/2024, and Quasar Airlines (P) Ltd. v. Shaurya Aeronautics (P) Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine Del 2821, where the start date was the acceptance of the late defense.
In cases where acceptance depended on paying costs, like Neeraj Saran Srivastava v. Loudon Owen & Ors., Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:283, and Bunch Microtechnologies Private Limited & Ors. v. Creator Economy Tech Private Limited & Ors., order dated March 14, 2024 in CS(OS) 14/2023, the courts said the time starts from when the costs are actually paid. The judge in this case applied these ideas, noting that the defense was accepted on August 23, 2024, with costs paid on August 30, 2024. Even starting from August 23, the replication on October 5 was within 45 days.
The defendant argued using other cases that the time always starts from receipt, like in Presto Stantest Pvt. Ltd. v. Pacorr Testing Instruments Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., Neutral Citation: 2023:DHC:9461, where an email was seen as receipt. Other cases cited included FITJEE Ltd. v. Vidya Mandir Classes & Ors., order dated September 4, 2023 in CS(OS) 656/2021; Shri Ram Housing Finance and Investment of India Ltd. v. Omesh Mishra Memorial Charitable Trust & Ors., order dated October 4, 2023 in CS(OS) 38/2023; Asha & Ors. v. Rajbala & Ors., order dated October 5, 2023 in CS(OS) 662/2021; Smt. Saroj & Ors. v. Smt. Uma & Ors., order dated December 5, 2023 in CS(OS) 539/2023; Dr. Reddys Laboratories Ltd. v. Wockhardt Ltd. and Anr., order dated February 26, 2024 in CS(COMM) 101/2023; Pradeep Kumar v. Sudesh Bhatia, order dated July 15, 2024 in CS(COMM) 500/2023; and Mrs. Bushra Shuaib v. Mr. Hilal Ahmed, order dated August 22, 2024 in CS(OS) 135/2023. These all said time starts from receipt of the defense.
The defendant also used Ram Swarup Lugani v. Nirmal Lugani & Ors., order dated September 30, 2019 in CS(OS) 182/2019; Ram Swarup Lugani v. Nirmal Lugani & Ors., Neutral Citation: 2020:DHC:3049-DB; Louis Dreyfus v. Nutralite Agro, Neutral Citation: 2024:DHC:238; Delhi Gymkhana Club v. Col. Ashish Khanna, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 7022; and the Supreme Court’s order dated June 28, 2021 in SLP(C) No. 15142/2020 in Ram Swarup Lugani v. Nirmal Lugani & Ors. These emphasized that the 45-day limit is absolute and cannot be ignored. The defendant said SNS Products was wrong to mix up “receipt” with “taken on record,” as receipt means getting the document, not court approval.
The court disagreed, saying those cases did not deal with late defenses, so they do not apply here. Instead, the line of cases like SNS Products better fits when the defense is belated. The judge also referred to Union of India v. Popular Construction Co., (2001) 8 SCC 470, where the Supreme Court said phrases like “but not thereafter” mean no further extensions, but here the issue was the start date, not extending beyond 45 days.
The court said interpreting “receipt” as the date of official acceptance in late cases makes sense to avoid unfairness and keep the process logical. It helps decide cases on real issues rather than strict time traps. The judge noted the conflict in past decisions but followed the purposive approach, meaning looking at the rule’s goal of fair and quick justice.
Decision
The court decided in favor of the plaintiffs. It ruled that the replication was filed within the allowed time, starting from August 23, 2024, when the written statement was accepted. The 13-day delay was excused, and the replication was allowed on record.
Case Details
- Case Title: Helsinn Healthcare SA & Anr. Vs Hetero Healthcare Limited
- Order Date: September 26, 2025
- Case Number: CS(COMM)347/2024
- Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:8658
- Name of Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
- Name of Hon’ble Judge: Mr. Justice Tejas Karia
Disclaimer
The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.
Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi
