TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether appeals filed against rejection of pre-grant opposition under the earlier patent regime, during the interregnum before the amended appellate provisions were brought into force, were maintainable before the High Court and required to be heard there rather than by the Appellate Board.
Analysis: The statutory scheme under the Patents Act, 1970 was altered in stages by the Patents (Amendment) Act, 2005, which introduced a distinction between pre-grant and post-grant opposition. Although the amended framework contemplated appeal to the Appellate Board in post-grant matters, the amended appellate provisions and the transfer provision were not brought into force until later. At the time the appeals were filed, the unamended law continued to govern appeals from orders on pre-grant opposition, under which the High Court remained the appellate forum. The postponement in commencement created a hiatus, and the later regime could not deprive the opponent of the remedy already available when the appeals were instituted. The transfer provision also did not justify sending such pre-grant matters to the Appellate Board, which had no authority to decide them.
Conclusion: The appeals against rejection of pre-grant opposition were to remain before the High Court and be decided in accordance with the law then in force, in favour of the respondent.
TaxTMI 
