1934 (12) TMI 20 - HC - Indian Laws

Appeal Dismissed; Petitioners Directed to Governor-General in Council; Controller's Actions Upheld as Just and Discretionary.

The appeal was dismissed by the Court, which held that the petitioners had an adequate remedy through the right of appeal to the Governor-General in ... - Issues Involved:1. Refusal to issue subpoenas by the Controller of Patents and Designs.2. Jurisdiction of the Court to issue writs of certiorari, prohibition, or mandatory orders.3. Adequacy of the right of appeal to the Governor-General in Council.4. Discretion of the Controller in granting or refusing subpoenas.5. Right to adduce viva voce evidence and the discretion of the Controller to grant adjournments.Detailed Analysis:1. Refusal to Issue Subpoenas by the Controller of Patents and Designs:The appeal was against an order dismissing an application to quash two orders made by the Controller of Patents and Designs, who refused to issue subpoenas. The petitioners had applied for a patent related to steel alloys, which was opposed on grounds of lack of novelty and insufficient description. The Controller directed the petitioners to be ready with their affidavits and witnesses by March 20, 1934. However, the petitioners did not suggest any intention to call further witnesses on March 22. Consequently, the Controller assumed no further witnesses were to be called and set a date for hearing arguments. The petitioners later sought subpoenas for Mr. Gibson and Mr. Davar, which were refused by the Controller, leading to the present appeal.2. Jurisdiction of the Court to Issue Writs of Certiorari, Prohibition, or Mandatory Orders:The Court considered whether it had jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari or prohibition or a mandatory order under Section 45 of the Specific Relief Act. The learned Judge noted that such writs are extraordinary remedies, used only in exceptional situations where justice cannot otherwise be done. The Court emphasized that these remedies are discretionary and should be effective if issued. The Controller had already given judgment, and the matter was now with the Governor-General in Council, making the Controller functus officio. Therefore, the Court could not grant the remedies sought.3. Adequacy of the Right of Appeal to the Governor-General in Council:The Court examined whether the right of appeal to the Governor-General in Council was an adequate remedy. It was noted that the Governor-General in Council has the power to remand the case to the Controller for further hearing or to hear further witnesses. The Court referred to previous cases and legal principles, concluding that the appellate tribunal has ample power to grant appropriate remedies, making the right of appeal adequate.4. Discretion of the Controller in Granting or Refusing Subpoenas:The Court discussed whether the Controller had discretion to grant or refuse subpoenas. The argument was made that the Controller is obligated to hear viva voce evidence if tendered by either party. The Court concluded that the Controller must issue subpoenas if requested, similar to a Judge under Order XVI, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Controller's discretion is limited to ensuring that proceedings are conducted in accordance with natural justice.5. Right to Adduce Viva Voce Evidence and the Discretion of the Controller to Grant Adjournments:The Court affirmed that parties have the right to adduce viva voce evidence, and the Controller must allow this if requested. However, the Controller has discretion to grant or refuse adjournments, which must be exercised judicially. The Court emphasized the need for impartiality and adherence to natural justice principles. The appellate tribunal can address any issues related to the refusal of subpoenas or the need for adjournments.Conclusion:The appeal was dismissed, with the Court finding that the petitioners had an adequate remedy through the right of appeal to the Governor-General in Council. The Controller's decisions regarding subpoenas and the conduct of proceedings were within the scope of natural justice and judicial discretion. The appellants were ordered to pay the opponent's costs, with no order as to the costs of the Controller.