Interim stay on patent revocation proceedings requires express statutory power; specialised tribunals should generally be left to decide.

A court should restrain proceedings before another judicial forum only in exceptional cases and where the statute expressly permits a stay mechanism; the Patents Act, 1970 contains no such power, unlike the Trade Marks Act, 1999, which shows express legislative provision when intended. Specialised tribunals are to be left free to decide matters within their jurisdiction, and the scope of alleged non-disclosure may also vary with the challenger's case. On that basis, the interim order deferring the revocation proceedings before the IPAB was liable to be recalled, and the revocation proceedings were allowed to continue.

---

---

Issues: Whether the interim order directing deferment of the revocation proceedings before the IPAB should be recalled and the proceedings allowed to continue.

Analysis: A court should restrain prosecution of proceedings before another judicial forum only in exceptional circumstances and where the statute specifically confers such power. The Patents Act, 1970 contains no such power. By contrast, the Trade Marks Act, 1999 shows that where the legislature intends a stay mechanism, it does so expressly. Specialized tribunals are to be left free to decide matters within their jurisdiction, and the nature and extent of alleged non-disclosure may also differ depending on the party raising the challenge. The third-party applicant stated that its revocation case before the IPAB would be confined to non-disclosure.

Conclusion: The earlier interim order was liable to be recalled and the revocation proceedings before the IPAB were permitted to continue.

---