The Supreme Court will in April decide on Novartis Vaccines & Diagnostics Inc's plea seeking reference of a dispute with Aventis Pharma Ltd.
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court will in April decide on Novartis Vaccines & Diagnostics Inc's plea seeking reference of a dispute with Aventis Pharma Ltd, a subsidiary of French company Sanofi Aventis, over marketing of anti-rabies vaccine for arbitration in April.
A bench headed by Justice A K Mathur after a brief hearing kept the matter for the second week of April. Earlier, it had issued notice to Aventis Pharma Ltd (APL).
Challenging a Bombay High Court judgement that dismissed its arbitration plea, Novartis alleged the High Court did not consider the malafide behaviour of APL.
Novartis's petition, filed through law firm Parekh and Co, stated that the dispute between NVDI and APL arose under the shareholders' agreement dated April 22, 1998 to which Germany-based Novartis Vaccines and Diagnostics GmbH & Co KG (formerly Chiron Behring GmbH & Co), Swiss conglomerate Novartis AG and Novartis India were not parties.
According to it, the arbitration plea was filed to assert the petitioner's rights under the shareholders' agreement and the joint venture agreement.
According to NVDI, it had entered into a JV with APL on April 22, 1998 to establish Chiron Behring Vaccines Pvt Ltd (CBV) for manufacturing rabies vaccine in India. As per the agreement, NVDI held 51 per cent in the JV and the balance was held by APL.
Besides a shareholders agreement between NVDI and APL, CBV and APL had also signed a marketing and distribution pact, which was to remain in force for 10 years from May 1, 1998. It was to be automatically renewed for successive periods unless CBV decided to terminate it by giving a 18-month notice in advance, the petition stated.
However, the Board of Directors on September 27, 2006 decided against renewing the marketing and distribution agreement after April 30, 2008.
While the chairman had intimated APL about the decision, the latter had disputed the same, saying that decision taken on September 27 was not a valid termination of the agreement.
Pursuant to this, APL moved the Bombay High Court in July 2007 challenging CBV's decision not to renew the agreement.
While Aventis sought to quash the resolution passed by the Board, NVDI and CBV filed an application under Section 45 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 seeking arbitration.
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}