Division Bench Dismisses Commercial Appeal Citing Bar Under Section 100-A of CPC
In a significant ruling, the Bombay High Court has dismissed the Commercial Appeal filed by Vishal Prafulsingh Solanke and others against the Controller of Patent and Designs, citing the bar on second appeals under Section 100-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The judgment, delivered by a Division Bench comprising Justices Bharati Dangre and Manjusha Deshpande, holds that an intra-court appeal from a decision of a Single Judge is not maintainable when the first appeal is decided by the High Court itself.
The appellants had challenged a decision by a Single Judge who upheld the refusal of their patent application by the Assistant Controller of Patent and Designs. This appeal was initially filed under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, which allows appeals to the Commercial Appellate Division of the High Court against judgments or orders of a Commercial Division.
The court meticulously analyzed the interplay between various statutory provisions, including Section 117-A of the Patents Act, 1970, Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, and Section 100-A of the CPC. It concluded that while the judgment of the Single Judge did qualify as a 'judgment' rather than an 'order', thereby making it prima facie appealable, the bar under Section 100-A of the CPC precluded any further appeal.
The judgment highlights the legislative intent to curtail the multiplicity of appeals and to ensure finality in judicial decisions. It also underscores the role of the Controller of Patents as a quasi-judicial authority with the trappings of a civil court, emphasizing the limited scope for further appellate review within the High Court.
The ruling draws on precedents set by the Supreme Court and other High Courts, reflecting a consistent judicial approach to interpreting the bar on second appeals. The court ultimately held that the appeal was not maintainable, reinforcing the statutory limits on intra-court appeals in commercial disputes.
Bottom Line:
Appeal under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 is not maintainable against a judgment passed by a Single Judge of the High Court exercising appellate jurisdiction under Section 117-A of the Patents Act, 1970, in light of the bar under Section 100-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Statutory provision(s): Patents Act, 1970 Sections 15, 18, 77, 117A; Commercial Courts Act, 2015 Section 13; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Section 100-A.
