0

Delhi Court Upholds Interim Mandatory Injunction in a Recent Jurisdiction and Lien Dispute Case   

Articles, Blog , , , , ,

Case Title: COGOPORT PRIVATE LIMITED v. STRIDES PHARMA SCIENCE LIMITED & ORS 

Date of Decision: 22nd September 2023 

Case Number: FAO(OS) (COMM) 163/2023 

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Hon’ble Ms. Justice Neena Bansal Krishna 

 

   

Introduction 

 

This case involves an appeal under Section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, challenging an order allowing an interim mandatory injunction. The plaintiff, COGOPORT PRIVATE LIMITED, sought the release of goods from the defendant, STRIDES PHARMA SCIENCE LIMITED, which were withheld due to a payment dispute. The appeal challenges the jurisdiction, locus standi, and validity of the injunction. 

 

Factual Background 

 

The plaintiff, a pharmaceutical company, engaged defendant No. 1 to deliver life-saving medicines to New York. The consignment was forwarded through defendant No. 3. Upon reaching New York, the goods were withheld on the defendant’s instructions due to a payment dispute. The plaintiff’s consignment contained perishable items worth USD 642,609. 

 

Legal Issues 

 

The case raised several legal issues:  

 

  1. Jurisdiction of the court to entertain the suit. 
  2. Locus standi of the plaintiff to file the suit. 
  3. Validity of the defendant’s right to withhold the goods. 
  4. The appropriateness of granting an interim mandatory injunction.

 

Contentions 

 

  • The appellant argued that the court lacked territorial jurisdiction, citing agreements that excluded Delhi’s jurisdiction.  
  • They questioned the plaintiff’s locus standi due to the absence of privity of contract.  
  • The appellant claimed the right to withhold goods due to an unpaid invoice.  
  • The plaintiff argued that the extraordinary circumstances justified the interim mandatory injunction. 

 

Observation and Analysis 

 

The court found that the plaintiff had locus standi as the consignor, and the jurisdictional arguments were unfounded. The court also questioned the appellant’s right to withhold goods based on an unpaid invoice and found no privity of contract with the plaintiff. It observed that the goods were withheld to leverage other litigations, causing harm to the plaintiff. 

 

Decision of the Court 

 

  1. The court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit as the appellant had its office in Delhi, within the territorial jurisdiction of the court. None of the other respondents contested the jurisdiction. 

   

  1. The plaintiff had the locus standi to file the suit since it was the consigner of the goods and had title until delivery was made to the consignee. The lack of a direct contract with the appellant did not negate the plaintiff’s right to initiate the suit. 

   

  1. The appellant’s exercise of lien on the goods was found to be without statutory basis. The appellant’s reliance on an unpaid invoice dated after the goods arrived was deemed inequitable. 

 

  1. The court upheld the grant of an interim Mandatory Injunction to the plaintiff, as the equities favored the plaintiff. The perishable nature of the goods and demurrage charges being incurred justified the injunction.

 

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.” 

 

Written by – Ananya Chaudhary 

Click here to view judgment