TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (10) TMI 1059
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... writ petitioner Mr. Bharat Bhogilal Patel in filing the writ petitions assailing the order passed by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB). It is in view thereof that arguments were addressed by both the sides confined to this issue, i.e. the preliminary aspect to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court, the fate of which would in turn, be material before the Court examines the merits of the impugned order. For the sake of convenience, the parties are described as per their rankings in M.P. No.3 of 2012. 2. The first respondent, being the original writ petitioner, filed Patent Applications on 21.9.1998 in respect of 'An Improved Laser Marking and Engraving Machine' and 'A Process of Manufacturing Engraved Design Articles on Metals or Non-Metals' under the Patents Act, 1970 as amended by the Patents (Amendment) Act, 2002. The Patent Rules, 2003 have been enacted and brought into force on 20.5.2003 in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 159 of the Patents Act. Rule 4 specifies the 'appropriate office' to be the head office of the patent office or the branch office, as the case may be, within whose territorial limits the applicant normally resides or has his do....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... which would have delayed the hearing, as the Bench sittings used to take place only periodically at Mumbai. It is in view thereof that the order dated 12.7.2012 was passed by the Circuit Bench of IPAB sitting at Mumbai as would be apparent from it. 5. According to the petitioner, the only basis for the first respondent invoking the jurisdiction of this Court is stated to be the hearing of the two patent revocation applications taking place at Chennai, which would not give him a cause, as that was only a matter of convenience to expeditiously conclude the hearing on account there not being enough frequency of sittings of the Circuit Bench at Mumbai. 6. On the other hand, the stand of the first respondent is that the patent revocation applications, by consent were heard at Chennai, adjourned from time to time and decided only at Chennai. The hearing of the applications took place on 12.3.2012 and the orders were passed by the IPAB on 12.6.2012. The mention of the IPAB, Bombay in the impugned order is stated to be a mistake as the applications were listed and published in the cause list at Chennai. It is in view thereof that this Court is stated to have the jurisdiction to ente....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ery Appellate Tribunal situated at Chennai. The plea of the petitioners therein was that the Madras High Court would have the jurisdiction in view thereof as the order of the Tribunal at Hyderabad got merged with the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal at Chennai and thus, substantial cause would arise at Chennai under Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India. This plea was opposed by the respondents on the ground that under Article 226(1) of the Constitution, the High Court's jurisdiction depends upon the seat of authority, and where the authority acts as appellate authority for more than one State and where the authority has power to change its place of sitting, then a legal fiction is applied that when it deals with the case of a particular State, its seat is deemed to be within the State concerned and it is the place of locality "in the eyes of law". Thus, the writ petition would not be maintainable under Article 226(1) of the Constitution of India in the Madras High Court. The entire transaction having taken place at Hyderabad, merely because the order impugned had been passed by the Appellate Tribunal situated at Chennai, the same by itself may not be considered to be a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....013 dated 17.4.2013 (MHC) The prayer for leave to file the writ petition against the order of the IPAB, Chennai gave rise to the aforesaid judgment. The IPAB granted an interim order staying revocation of the patent issued in favour of the first respondent therein, which the petitioner alleged was affecting its rights in a pending suit before the Delhi High Court. The suit had been filed by the first respondent therein, where the petitioner had filed a counter claim. It was noticed that the IPAB had passed the interim order pursuant to an order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the appeal was posted before the IPAB for its sitting scheduled at New Delhi. The parties in the petition were litigating the very same subject matter in the suit pending before the Delhi High Court and thus, it was considered appropriate to direct that the petitioner should, in case of a grievance, approach the Delhi High Court for appropriate relief. This view was taken despite noticing that a part of the cause of action may have arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court due to the order passed by the IPAB, Chennai. II. Cases cited by the first respondent (i) U.P. Rashtriya Chini Mill Adh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h Court may refuse to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction by invoking the doctrine of forum conveniens. The effect of the 42nd Constitutional Amendment, introducing Clause (2) to Article 226 of the Constitution, which introduced the concept of cause of action arsing wholly or in part, was analysed. In that context, Nasiruddin's case (supra) was referred to. The principle of forum nonconveniens originating as a principle of international law, concerned with Comity of Nations was noticed and its non-application to domestic Courts in which jurisdiction is vested by law. However, the remedy under Article 226 being discretionary, it was held by the Full Bench earlier that the Court may refuse to exercise jurisdiction when jurisdiction has been invoked mala fide. The conclusion recorded was that, where an order is passed by an appellate authority or revisional authority, a part of cause of action arises at that place. When the original authority is situated at one place and the appellate authority is situated at another, a writ petition would be maintainable at both places. However, the concept of forum conveniens could come into play. While setting aside the earlier view, it was ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aw as a principle of Comity of Nations, would apply to the discretionary remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 9. Now, turning to the facts of the present case, undisputedly, the first respondent's business is located at Mumbai. This gave rise to the first respondent filing applications under the Patents Act in the Office of the Registrar of Patents at Mumbai, and the patents of the first respondent were registered at Mumbai. It is in fact the petitioner which was aggrieved by the registration of the patents in favour of the first respondent and sought revocation of the patents by initiating proceedings before the Gujarat High Court. In those proceedings, the first respondent took an objection about the jurisdiction of that Court. The first respondent also initiated criminal proceedings before the X Metropolitan Magistrate's Court at Mumbai. He had also filed a writ petition in the Bombay High Court, which he subsequently withdrew on account of other reasons. 10. In view of the constitution of the IPAB in the year 2007, the Gujarat High Court itself transferred the issue of revocation of patents to the IPAB Circuit Bench at Mumbai, where the proceedings comme....