Ensure Main Contesting Defendant Is Listed As Defendant No 1 In IPR Cases: Delhi HC To Registry

The notice cites the court's judgment in Microlube India Ltd. v. Maggon Auto Centre & Another, wherein Justice BD Ahmed had condemned the prevailing practice, observing,

"It is not only in this case, but in several other cases that this Court has noticed this unhealthy trend on the part of the plaintiffs to array the main defendant as defendant No. 2 or defendant No. 3 while naming some innocuous dealer or retail outlet as defendant No. 1. The object is easily discernible. When the counsel for the main defendants scan the list of cases, they would not be able to know as to whether any case has been filed against them so as to enable them to appear on the very first date on which the case is listed before court."

The circular then takes note of an order passed in Bata India Limited v. Chawla Boot House & Anr, wherein Justice Pratibha M Singh had directed the Registry to ensure strict compliance with the decision in Microlube India Ltd.

Justice Singh had observed, "It is noticed that, despite this being settled legal position, in most cases, an unknown Defendant or an employee or Director is impleaded as the first Defendant to avoid detection in the cause list. Such a practice having been held to be impermissible by the Division Bench, the, same cannot be permitted to continue in any ma ner…     

… Registry is directed to ensure strict compliance of the judgment in the Micolube India SJ (supra) cited above and seek an undertaking of the Plaintiff in IPR cases where there are multiple Defendants that the Defendant No.1 being arrayed is the main contesting Defendant in the suit."

Quoting these cases, the circular directs strict compliance with the directions, clarifying that requisite undertaking shall be given at the end of the Memo of Parties.