in going into details. In the court of la go into the detail of the statements, attempt is made to catch in ground.
iw the opponents and their lawyers , the words are spun in details and an your own game. We were very short on that
Barrister Blanco White had come with full pre aration. He had brought with him a plastic model of the product Tolbutamide with all the different atoms in different colours and their internal connections. He explained to the court the entire process of Hoechst from various atoms from stage one and the additions and deletions till the end of the process as a final product. He explained what changes take place at every stage in the process, how different atoms are joined or eliminated in the Process or changed in the process to end in making Tolbutamide. He showed this Hoechst process and he also explained as per our patent how we had added some atoms and removed them in a perfunctory manner in order to claim distinctness. He explained all this with the plastic model of various atoms in the open court in simple words and in a visual form. He showed our differences as perfunctory. Our Scientists were not in a position to challenge any of his arguments and could not demolish his points in any way. Not an iota of his technical argument was rebutted by our scientists. He explained in simple manner how Haffkine process was really a copy of Hoechst process, I faced this Truth in the High Court in 1968. Our side was not based on confirmed and tested Truth. We had a support of a registration paper and it had a Government Seal. In reality our process
~ was process of Hoechst's.I faced this naked truth needless to say that Unichem lost that case.
I saw the Truth at the enquiry of Vishnu’s case and this vision of truth in the Tolbutamide case was the second occasion when I personally saw and felt the truth .These two insights were sufficient to teach me that Truth stands on its own legs and has strength of its own. I had taken a lot of trouble in the Tolbutamide case. I had had several discussions on this case. I had a strong belief in the Truth in my case. That the same ultimate truth is reached by several paths is a scientific fact as well. We failed in the open court test. What I had believed as Truth was not Truth at all. It is possible that it was my own false belief. Other people may have known the truth but thought that it may prove otherwise in court. They might have thought of it as a workable truth.
Afterwards, I discussed this issue with many people and realised that our registered truth was based on weak foundation. A good many Indian inventions and the claims based on them fail if tested on the anvil of testing. Many of our claims are proved false at cross questioning at first stage. They are not based on truth. Euclid very categorically states that when two straight lines intersect each other then only the truth gets
49 �
