Himachal Pradesh High Court Vacates Injunction Against Safex Chemicals In Patent Dispute

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has vacated an interim injunction restraining Safex Chemicals Private Limited in a patent infringement suit after finding, prima facie, that there existed no cause of action or wrong against the company within Himachal Pradesh to invoke the court's territorial jurisdiction.

A division bench of Chief Justice G.S. Sandhawalia and Justice Bipin Chander Negi passed the order on June 4. The bench allowed Safex's appeal against a June 6, 2025 order of a Single Judge that had confirmed an ex-parte ad-interim injunction granted in July 2023.

“For the aforesaid reasons, the appeal is allowed as prima-facie this Court is convinced that in the facts and attending circumstances of the case at hand, there exists no cause of action/wrong done to invoke the territorial jurisdiction of this Court insofar as appellant/defendant No.2 is concerned. The alleged cause of action/wrong done by appellant/defendant No.2 is a triable issue,” the bench held.

The suit was filed by SML Limited. It alleged that Safex Chemicals and a retailer, Mohan Lal Sharma, had infringed its patent through the sale of a product marketed under the brand name “Aladdin” within Himachal Pradesh.

To establish territorial jurisdiction, SML relied on four invoices showing sales of “Aladdin” within the state. Safex disputed jurisdiction. It contended that it had no authorised dealers or retailers in Himachal Pradesh.

Safex also argued that “Aladdin” is a product regulated under the Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985. According to the company, the product was authorised for sale only in specified states and not in Himachal Pradesh. It further contended that the product had been procured from another state where it was authorised to be sold. It was then re-sold in Himachal Pradesh.

The Single Judge had found territorial jurisdiction primarily on two grounds. The first was the invoices showing sales within Himachal Pradesh. The second was the finding that Safex had a manufacturing unit in Una.

Examining the record, the division bench found that the pleadings and documents relied upon by SML did not establish that Safex manufactured the allegedly infringing product within Himachal Pradesh. The court noted that material on record showed that one version of “Aladdin” was manufactured by Safex in Delhi. Another was manufactured by a separate entity, Him Bio Agro, at Una.

“Hence, from the said document, it is clearly evident that the 'Aladdin' is not being manufactured by the appellant (defendant No. 2) within the territorial jurisdiction,” the bench observed.

The court also noted Safex's stand that it had no authorised dealers for sale of “Aladdin” in Himachal Pradesh. During the appeal proceedings, Mohan Lal Sharma appeared before the court and produced documents relating to his fertiliser business.

“From a perusal of the aforesaid order dated 08.01.2026, it is evident that respondent No.2 (defendant No.1) had no authorization, express or implied to sell the infringing product 'Aladdin', as per the authorization on the basis of which the said respondent No. 2 is carrying on his business,” the bench observed.

The court further found that the four invoices relied upon by SML had been issued to third parties. It also noted that there was no pleading establishing any connection between those parties, the retailer and Safex.

“The possibility of one being dragged into litigation, by adducing flimsy material, cannot be ruled out as it is easy for the present appellant to be dragged into litigation if the only material necessary to give jurisdiction to a court is a few invoices issued by an entity, who is not an authorised representative of the appellant, to some third parties,” the bench observed.

Vacating the injunction against Safex, the court clarified that its conclusions were confined to the interim stage. It observed that the findings would not prevent the Single Judge from reaching a different conclusion if additional material was brought on record.

“The present observation herein are only for deciding the issue of the injunction at this stage and will not influence the learned Single Judge to come to a contrary finding on the basis of additional material, if any, brought on record by the parties,” the bench held.