TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (2) TMI 1681
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d rendition of accounts. At that juncture, the said application had undergone comprehensive trial, final arguments had been heard and a verdict was expected on merits. Nonetheless, the Registrar held the application to be not maintainable, reasoning that such an action could only be initiated following the grant of plant variety registration and not while the application for registration was still under consideration. Consequently, the application was rejected on the premise of being prematurely filed. This rationale of the Registrar is encapsulated in the following excerpt from the Impugned Order: "The main crux of the issue involved in this matter is that the Applicant has applied for compound registration of their Okra varieties RAADHIKA (REG/2018/164 H) along with AV 508-Female Parent (REG/20187 /164 P1) and AV 509 Male Parent (REG/2018/164 P2). The Applicant in their 24(5) application has stated that Respondent by commercializing varieties Bindu and NBH-45 is abusing the commercial interest of the applicant's varieties RAADHIKA hybrid and A V 509 male parent and A V 508 female parent. Before adverting to the main issues involved in this matter. I am first....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... after the passing of the direction and before registration the application is rejected by opposition or otherwise or abandoned or closed then the third party would be severely prejudiced. Hence, Section 24(5) could be enforced by applicant breeder only on registration of the variety with respect to period between date of filing of application and date of grant of certificate of registration. I have no hesitation to hold that a petition under Section 24(5) can be maintainable only upon registration of a variety and of course it may be with reference to the period from date of filing of application to the date of grant of certificate of registration but the application under Section 24(5) can be filed as well as enforced only upon the registration of the variety. This is because of the reason that legally an interest of a breeder cannot be enforced only a right can be enforced. Once the breeder obtains the right then he can enforce also the interest which has crystallised into the right under the Act. Based on my aforesaid reasoning, I am of the firm view that an application under Section 24(5) can be filed only upon the registration of the variety which is the sub....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Appellant has filed additional documents placing on record the pleadings outlining the amended/ revised prayers made in the application filed before the Registrar. 5. In the above background, the Court has heard the counsel for the parties. At the outset, we must address the issue as to whether an application under Section 24(5) of the Act could have been rejected by the Registrar on the ground that it was premature as there was no registration of the plant variety. For the sake of convenience and clarity, the relevant provision is reproduced hereinbelow: "24. Issue of certificate of registration.- (5) The Registrar shall have power to issue such directions to protect the interests of a breeder against any abusive act committed by any third party during the period between filing of application for registration and decision taken by the Authority on such application." 6. In the opinion of the Court, a plain reading of the provision and the expression "during the period between filing of application for registration and decision taken by the Authority on such application", explicitly provides that Section 24(5) of the Act vests the Registrar with the power to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f Plants. 1991 (UPOV) which states that each contracting party shall provide measures designed to safeguard the interests of the breeder during the period between the filing or the publication of the application for the grant of breeder's right and the grant of that right. It is submitted that there is no mandatory requirement that a 'product has to be registered with the PPV authorities for same to be sold. The section was adopted from UPOV conventions situations. Κ. That once the interest is crystallized into a right, an order for compensation can be made which is appealable under section 5.6 (1) (e) of PPV&FR 'Act, 2001 before the Plant Varieties Protection Appellate Tribunal (PVPAT)." 7. Considering the above, the Court concludes that the Registrar overstepped their jurisdiction by adopting an interpretation of the provision that is not only discordant with its explicit language but also diverges from the Department's own interpretation of the said provision. Such a misinterpretation represents a clear failure to exercise the jurisdiction vested by the statute, rendering the Registrar's decision to be fundamentally flawed. Accordingly, the order is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppellate Authority by its order dated January 7, 1991. While considering the effect of an interim order staying the operation of the order under challenge, a distinction has to be made between quashing of an order and stay of operation of an order. Quashing of an order results in the restoration of the position as it stood on the date of the passing of the order which has been quashed. The stay of operation of an order does not, however, lead to such a result. It only means that the order which has been stayed would not be operative from the date of the passing of the stay order and it does not mean that the said order has been wiped out from existence. This means that if an order passed by the Appellate Authority is quashed and the matter is remanded, the result would be that the appeal which had been disposed of by the said order of the Appellate Authority would be restored and it can be said to be pending before the Appellate Authority after the quashing of the order of the Appellate Authority. The same cannot be said with regard to an order staying the operation of the order of the Appellate Authority because in spite of the said order, the order of the Appellate Authority cont....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ount of its stay by the Supreme Court. He argues that the reasoning set forth by the Division Bench would still apply to the extent that Section 24(5) of the Act continues to be unconstitutional and therefore has no legal effect. Accordingly, he submits that, notwithstanding the view taken by the Registrar as noted above, there is no ground to interfere with the Impugned Order. 12. The Court has carefully considered Mr. Lokur's arguments but does not find them compelling. It is important to recognise that the impact of an interim stay varies depending on the specific circumstances and context in which it is granted. The nature of the dispute, whether it involves individual parties or raises questions of wider legal or constitutional significance, would be a pertinent factor for judicial scrutiny in understanding the implications of any stay granted. The rationale behind imposing a stay is as varied as the disputes themselves, and is often tailored meticulously to fit the unique circumstances of each case. It is this specificity that resists a blanket approach to interpreting the effects of a stay, i.e., there cannot be a one-sizefits-all approach to understanding the impact ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t's intention to suspend the effect and operation of the Division Bench's declaration of unconstitutionality, pending a comprehensive and final resolution on the matter. In light of this, the most logical interpretation of the Supreme Court's interim order is to view it as a temporary stay on the Division Bench's declaration, thereby maintaining the status quo of Section 24(5) until the Supreme Court provides a conclusive judgment. Entertaining Mr. Lokur's argument regarding the continued precedential influence of the Division Bench's judgment in spite of the stay, would essentially negate the Supreme Court's intent behind issuing the stay. Such a perspective would undermine the stay's practical effect, suggesting that the Supreme Court's interim measure is without substantive legal consequence. 16. In light of the above, it would also be apposite to consider the precedents cited by Mr. Lokur in support of his contention. Firstly, it is imperative for us to appreciate the holding of the Supreme Court in Chamundi Mopeds (supra) within the context in which it was delivered. In the said judgment, the Court held that the High Court's stay order would not have the effect of r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nch's judgment, until a final determination is made by the Supreme Court. This conclusion is further supported by the fact that in the instant case, the Appellant's application under Section 24(5) of the Act was filed subsequent to the Supreme Court's stay, yet was entertained, indicating that the Registrar's position on this issue is similarly aligned with the aforenoted rationale of the Court as to the persisting validity of the provision. 18. The Court also finds merit in the Appellant's reliance on Virbhadra Singh & Anr. v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Ors.[2017 SCC OnLine Del 7747], wherein this Court had considered and rejected a similar argument as the one raised by Mr. Lokur, to the following effect: "199. So far as the submission of the learned Advocate General Mr. Dogra premised on the decision of the Guahati High Court in Navendra Kumar (supra) is concerned, I am of the view that since the said decision has been stayed by the Supreme Court, the said decision cannot be pressed into service. Reliance placed by Mr. Dogra on Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd. (supra) is of no avail. In that case, the Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) had ordere....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....awn the attention of this Court to the communication written by the Appellant to the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers' Rights Authority in response to the defects raised at the time of filing the application. It would be appropriate to extract the entire communication for the sake of clarity: "To, The Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers' Rights Authority New Delhi -110012 28.06.2021 In Re: Application under 24(5) of PPV & FR Act, 2001 by UPL Ltd. in respect of candidate hybrid Raadhika- Okra variety- REG/2018/164H Sub: Curing of Defects Sir I Madam, We are the advocates for the Applicant in the aforesaid S.24(5) application. In respect of the defects raised we submit the following:- 1. Defect 1:- Authorisation form in Form PV-1 is being filed. You may kindly substitute the same for the vakalatnama already filed on record. 2. Defect 2:- (a) It is humbly submitted that the relief sought for in paragraph 18(a), 18(b) and 18(c) are well within the scope of S.24(5). The statute itself contains no such exclusion and there are no binding judicial precedents limiting the Ld....