The Supreme Court of India refused to stay an FIR against JAMP Pharma Corporation and its subsidiary, upholding Allahabad High Court relief favouring Jubilant Generics Limited, while allowing legal remedies for FIR quashing.
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court has declined to stay the FIR lodged against Canadian firm Jamp Pharma Corporation and its Indian subsidiary, Jamp India Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd., while also upholding the interim relief earlier granted by the Allahabad High Court in favour of Jubilant Generics Limited.
JAMP India had challenged the Allahabad High Court’s order that maintained restrictions preventing the company from manufacturing or marketing certain medicines and from using Jubilant’s confidential product data.
The Supreme Court was informed about an FIR registered in Noida following a complaint by Jubilant, but it chose not to intervene, observing: “It shall be open for the petitioner to avail appropriate legal remedy for getting the FIRs quashed.” In practical terms, the apex court allowed the FIR investigation to proceed and left open JAMP’s option to seek separate relief to quash the FIR.
Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi appeared for JAMP India, while Senior Advocate Amit Sibal represented Jubilant Generics and other respondents. The Supreme Court found no legal infirmity in the High Court’s decision.
The FIR alleges misuse of confidential drug data involving entities such as Gracure Pharmaceuticals, VSI International, and Medreich; summons have been issued to Director Raveesh Grover, indicating an active probe. With both the High Court and the Supreme Court backing Jubilant at this stage and the criminal investigation ongoing, pressure on the JAMP group continues to mount.
The Court stated,
“We are of the view that no error, not to speak of any error of law could be said to have been committed by the High Court in passing the impugned judgment and order.”
It further clarified,
“It is needless to clarify that the suit shall be decided, uninfluenced by any of the observations made by the High Court in the impugned judgment and order.”
The bench also observed,
“We are informed that this litigation between the parties has ultimately led to filing of First Information Reports. If that be so, it shall be open for the petitioner to avail appropriate legal remedy before the appropriate forum in accordance with law for the purpose of getting the FIRs quashed in accordance with law.”
Background of the Case:
Jubilant Generics filed a suit against JAMP India and three others seeking reliefs related to three products, including injunctions to prevent manufacturing and transfer of restricted dossiers, and damages. The plaintiff sought interim relief under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the C.P.C. The Commercial Court granted an ad-interim injunction on 23.08.2024 restraining the defendants from producing, manufacturing or distributing the specified medicines.
JAMP India applied under Order XXXIX Rule 4 C.P.C. to vacate the ex-parte interim order. After pleadings were exchanged, the Commercial Court on 07.11.2024 allowed Jubilant’s application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 and permanently restrained JAMP India and three others from manufacturing, marketing, selling or otherwise using the drugs detailed in the plaint and from sharing the product dossier with third parties.
Contentions of Parties before the HC:
Counsel for JAMP India argued vigorously on multiple fronts before the Commercial Court disputing the suit’s maintainability, contending that the contested medicines were generic, and asserting that the balance of convenience and irreparable harm favoured JAMP. They also claimed that the Commercial Court’s order was wholly cursory and failed to address the issues and evidence put on record.
Counsel for Jubilant supported the impugned order on merits but did not defend the form in which the Commercial Court had expressed its decision.
High Court findings:
The High Court noted that while deciding applications under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C., courts must address prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable harm. The impugned Commercial Court order contained no discussion on prima facie case and made no reference to balance of convenience or irreparable injury, rendering it wholly cursory and not in compliance with settled requirements.
Given that defect, the High Court had two options: substitute its own view after hearing the parties or remand the matter to the Commercial Court for fresh consideration on proper legal parameters. To preserve the parties’ appellate rights, the High Court remanded the matter for re-hearing.
The High Court therefore partly allowed the appeal, set aside the 07.11.2024 order of Commercial Court No. 2, Gautam Budh Nagar, and directed the Commercial Court to hear and decide the Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 application filed by Jubilant and the Rule 4 application by JAMP India. Since pleadings were complete, the Commercial Court was ordered to decide the applications within four weeks of the parties’ next appearance; both parties agreed not to seek unnecessary adjournments.
The ad-interim injunction granted on 23.08.2024 was to remain in force until the Commercial Court disposed of the applications. The High Court made clear that its extension of the ad-interim order did not reflect any view on the merits and that the Commercial Court must decide the matter according to law, uninfluenced by the High Court’s comments.
Case Title: JAMP INDIA PHARMACEUTICALS PRIVATE LIMITED Vs JUBILANT GENERICS LTD. & ORS. SLA(C) 7875/2026
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
