Supreme Court emphasizes timely justice by setting aside IPAB's delayed order and establishing guidelines

The Supreme Court set aside the IPAB's order due to a significant delay of six years in pronouncing the judgment, emphasizing the importance of timely justice. Guidelines were established to ensure prompt judgments, including monitoring pending cases and allowing parties to request early judgments for delays exceeding three months. The decision was solely based on the delay, not the case merits. The IPAB's order and the Deputy Registrar's order were both overturned, with directions to dispose of the opposition application within two months. Each party was responsible for their own costs in this matter.

---

---

Issues:
Impugning IPAB order based on delay in pronouncement of judgment.

Analysis:
1. The Writ Petitioner challenged the IPAB Order dismissing the Appeal against the Order by the Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks due to a significant delay in pronouncing the judgment. The Court expressed concern over the failure to appreciate evidence and the long delay of six years between reserving and pronouncing the Orders. Records were requested to ascertain if the delay was an isolated incident or a systemic issue affecting other cases as well.

2. The current Deputy Registrar filed an Affidavit revealing that out of 383 concluded opposition cases between 2013 and 2015, most orders were passed promptly. Only 13 cases experienced delays, indicating that the issue was not widespread. Efforts were made to clear the backlog of cases, with over half of the pre-2013 cases disposed of.

3. The Supreme Court's emphasis on timely pronouncement of judgments was highlighted, citing that delayed justice is akin to denied justice. Guidelines were laid down to ensure judgments are pronounced promptly, including adding dates of reserving and pronouncing judgments in the records, monthly reporting of pending cases, and allowing parties to file for early judgment if delays exceed three months.

4. The Court stressed that Tribunals, like the IPAB, should adhere strictly to the guidelines on timely judgment pronouncement. A circular was issued to address pending cases, and the need for compliance with the Supreme Court's directives was emphasized. The Order in question was set aside due to the six-year delay in pronouncement, leading to the dismissal of the IPAB's order as well.

5. The Court clarified that the decision to set aside the Order was solely due to the delay in pronouncing the judgment, not based on the merits of the case. The Third Respondent's request to file a Counter-Affidavit on merits was declined, as the focus was on addressing the delay issue.

6. Consequently, the Order of the Second Respondent and the IPAB's order were both set aside. The Second Respondent was directed to dispose of the Opposition Application within two months from the receipt of the Court's Order. The Writ Petition was disposed of, with each party bearing their own costs.

---