SCOOTERS INDIA LIMITED Vs. JAYA HIND INDUSTRIES LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal filed under Section 116 of The Patents Act, 1970 (for short 'the Act') against the order dated 23rd September, 1986 of the Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs Bombay-respondent No. 2, whereby the apposition of the oppellant to the grant of a patent to M/s Jaya Hind Industries Ltd., Bambay-respondent No. I, was rejected. It appears that first respondent made an application No. 151977 on 23rd June, 1980 for a patent relating to an external roter assembly for a magneto and filed the same in the patent office at Bombay. It is stated that the appellant, who has given its address of Lucknow, learnt about the acceptance of the patent application of the first respondent when it was published in the Patent Gazette dated 17th September, 1983. Appellant thereafter in pursuance of the provisions of Section 25 of the Act and Ruls 35 of the Patents Rules, 1972, filed on or about 10th January, 1984 the notice of opposition to the said patent of the first respondent. After holding proceedings in accordance with the Act and the Rules the second respondent by order dated 23rd September, 1986 dismissed the opposition of the appellant. Thereafter, the present appeal came to be filed in this court under Section 116 of the Act. A notice was issued to the respondents to show cause as to why the appeal be not admitted. It may be noted that under Section 117 of the Act every appeal under the Act before a High Court shall be by petition and shall be in scuh form and shall contain such particulars as may be prescribed by rules made by the High Court under Section 158 of the Act. Like in many other enactments no rules have been framed by the High Court under the Act. However, present appeal has been filed in the form of a petition.

(2.) First respondent took a preliminary objection that this court had no jurisdiction to entertain this petition. It is stated that office and the establishments of the first respondent are situated within the State of Maharashtra and the application for grant of patent was made in the Patents Office at Bombay and the impugned order is of the second respondent whose office is in Bombay. It is the case of the first respondent, therefore, that the appeal should have been filed in the High Court at Bombay. In reply the appellant, however, stated that this court has jurisdiction to entertain the present petition and that Section 116 of the Act clearly conferred jurisdiction to any High Court to entertain an appeal against an order of the Controller of Patents accepting and rejecting a patents application. It was stated that the reason for this was that the Controller of Patents exercised jurisdiction over the entire country and any Deputy Controller of Patents in any regional office worked on his behalf and further that a patent granted by Controller of Patents through any of the Deputy Controllers was valid all over India and legal consequences ensued in the entire country. It was also stated that the High Courts had been given appellate authority over the judicial decisions of the Controller of Patents and that is why the words used in the Section 116 of the Act were that the appeal shall lie to 'a High Court', which clearly meant any High Court in the country.

(3.) I have heard arguments on the question of territorial jurisdiction of this court to entertain the present petition, advanced by Mr. Prashant Bhushan in support of the petition and Mr. N.K. Anand in opposition thereto.