Trade mark rectification jurisdiction: writ lies against a notice without jurisdiction despite alternative remedies and pending proceedings.

A writ petition under Article 226 can be maintained against a show-cause notice where the impugned action is alleged to be wholly without jurisdiction, because the alternative-remedy rule is one of discretion and policy, not an absolute bar. In trade mark rectification matters under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958, the authority before which the relevant proceeding is already pending alone functions as the Tribunal for that matter. Where related proceedings were pending before the High Court, the Registrar could not independently invoke suo motu power to issue a rectification notice, and the notice was liable to be quashed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a writ petition under Article 226 was maintainable against a show-cause notice where the impugned action was alleged to be wholly without jurisdiction, notwithstanding the availability of alternative remedies. (ii) Whether, on the scheme of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958, the Registrar could exercise suo motu power under Section 56(4) to issue notice for cancellation/rectification when proceedings relating to the trade mark were already pending before the High Court.

Issue (i): Whether a writ petition under Article 226 was maintainable against a show-cause notice where the impugned action was alleged to be wholly without jurisdiction, notwithstanding the availability of alternative remedies.

Analysis: The rule requiring exhaustion of alternative remedies is one of discretion and policy, not an absolute bar. Where the action complained of is without jurisdiction, the High Court can interfere under Article 226 even at the threshold. The existence of a pending statutory process does not prevent judicial review where the authority is shown to have no legal foundation for the action initiated.

Conclusion: The writ petition was maintainable and ought not to have been dismissed at the initial stage merely on the ground of alternative remedy.

Issue (ii): Whether, on the scheme of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958, the Registrar could exercise suo motu power under Section 56(4) to issue notice for cancellation/rectification when proceedings relating to the trade mark were already pending before the High Court.

Analysis: The definition of "Tribunal" in Section 2(1)(x) must be read with the context and the scheme of the Act. The Registrar and the High Court do not enjoy free-standing concurrent jurisdiction in all cases; the authority before which the concerned proceeding is pending alone functions as the Tribunal for that matter. Section 107 specifically channels rectification issues to the High Court in pending infringement litigation, and Section 111 reflects the primacy of rectification proceedings pending before the High Court. In the present setting, where related proceedings were already pending before the High Court, the Registrar could not independently initiate suo motu rectification proceedings under Section 56(4).

Conclusion: The Registrar lacked jurisdiction to issue the impugned show-cause notice under Section 56(4), and the notice was liable to be quashed.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the impugned notice was set aside, and the appellant obtained costs.

Ratio Decidendi: In trade mark rectification matters under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958, the authority before which the relevant proceeding is pending alone acts as the Tribunal, and where related proceedings are already pending before the High Court, the Registrar cannot invoke suo motu power under Section 56(4); an order or notice issued without jurisdiction remains open to challenge under Article 226 despite alternative remedies.

---