Introduction

The interplay between intellectual property statutes, special commercial legislation, and general procedural law often gives rise to critical procedural questions regarding appellate remedies. Following the abolishment of the Intellectual Property Appellate Board, appeals against decisions of the Controller of Patents were routed directly to the High Courts under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970.

A pivotal question that subsequently arose was whether a party dissatisfied with the decision of a Single Judge of the High Court in a patent appeal could file a second intra-court appeal before a Division Bench under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. In a significant judgement, the Bombay High Court comprehensively analysed the statutory framework governing patent appeals, commercial dispute jurisdiction, and the general prohibition against second appeals contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Factual and Procedural Background

The dispute originated when the applicants submitted Patent Application number 879/MUM/2015 on 17/03/2015 before the Indian Patent Office seeking protection for an invention titled Thread Type Tamper Evident Security Seal. During the examination process, a pre-grant opposition was filed by a third party.

Following administrative and statutory procedures, including the opportunity to amend complete specifications and file written submissions, the Assistant Controller of Patent and Designs issued an order on 14/06/2023. The Assistant Controller held that the opposition succeeded under Section 25(1)(b) and Section 25(1)(e) of the Patents Act, 1970, and refused the grant of patent to the applicants.

Seeking relief against the refusal order, the applicants approached the High Court on its original side by filing Commercial Miscellaneous Petition (L) number 25369 of 2023 under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970. The petition was heard by the High Court functioning as a Commercial Division under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

After examining the record, the High Court found no merit in the challenge and dismissed the petition on 27/03/2025, thereby affirming the decision of the Assistant Controller. Aggrieved by this dismissal, the applicants filed Commercial Appeal (L) number 13430 of 2025 under Section 13(1-A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 before the Division Bench of the High Court.

Case Timeline

Dispute Before the Court

The core question that required adjudication by the Court was whether a commercial appeal under Section 13(1-A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 lies before a Division Bench against a judgment delivered by a Single Judge in a statutory appeal under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970.

Arguments of the Appellants

• The Single Judge exercised original jurisdiction while entertaining the petition against the decision of the Controller.
• The resulting judgement was therefore an original decree appealable under Section 13(1-A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
• Section 100A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, applies only to appeals arising from decrees or orders passed by civil courts.
• Since the Controller of Patents is an administrative officer and not a civil court, Section 100A CPC was inapplicable.
• Accordingly, no statutory bar existed against filing an intra-court appeal.

Arguments of the Respondents and Amicus Curiae

• The Single Judge exercised statutory appellate jurisdiction under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970.
• The right to appeal is purely a statutory right.
• The Patents Act, 1970, does not provide for a second intra-court appeal.
• Section 100A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, creates an absolute bar against further intra-court appeals from appellate decisions rendered by a single judge.
• The statutory bar extends to appeals arising from quasi-judicial authorities such as the Controller of Patents.

Reasoning and Analysis of the Court

The Court engaged in an exhaustive analysis of the statutory framework and relevant legal principles. The Court observed that the entry of the dispute into the High Court occurred specifically through Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970, which provides an appellate forum against orders of the Controller.

Consequently, the single judge sat as an appellate court rather than a court of first instance. The Court affirmed that while Section 13(1-A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 allows appeals against judgments of the Commercial Division, the Commercial Courts Act does not displace general procedural statutes such as the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, except to the extent specifically modified under Section 16 for the trial of commercial suits.

In examining Section 100A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the Court stressed that the overarching legislative object of introducing Section 100A was to eliminate multiple tiers of appeals and ensure early finality in legal disputes.

The Court analyzed key judicial precedents of the Supreme Court, including Municipal Corporation of Brihanmumbai v. State Bank of India (1999) 1 SCC 123, Kamal Kumar Dutta v. Ruby General Hospital Ltd. (2006) 7 SCC 613, and Mohd. Saud v. Shaik Mahfooz (2010) 13 SCC 517.

The Court also reviewed the Full Bench rulings of the Bombay High Court in Gangawani and Co. v. Saraswati Banewar (2001) 3 Mh.L.J. 6 and Mohd. Riyazur Rehman Siddhiqui v. Deputy Director of Health Services (2008) 6 Mh.L.J. 941, alongside the decision in MITC Rolling Private Limited v. Renuka Realtors 2025 SCC Online SC 2375.

Addressing the contention that Section 100A CPC only applies to orders of traditional civil courts, the Court held that the Controller of Patents under Section 77 of the Patents Act, 1970 is invested with significant statutory powers of a civil court, including powers to examine witnesses on oath, order discovery and production of documents, receive evidence on affidavits, and award costs executable as a civil court decree.

The Court held that the Controller of Patents functions as a quasi-judicial authority possessing the trappings of a civil court. Following established precedents, the Court determined that the prohibition contained in Section 100A CPC applies with full force to statutory appeals originating from quasi-judicial authorities once they are decided by a single judge of the High Court.

Key Findings of the Court

• The High Court exercised appellate jurisdiction under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970.
• The Commercial Courts Act, 2015, does not override Section 100A CPC.
• The right to appeal exists only when expressly created by statute.
• The Controller of Patents possesses the trappings of a civil court under Section 77 of the Patents Act, 1970.
• Section 100A CPC bars further intra-court appeals against appellate judgements of a single judge.

Important Judicial Precedents Considered

Final Decision of the Court

The High Court concluded that the Single Judge had decided the matter in exercise of appellate jurisdiction under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970.

In the absence of an express provision granting a second appeal within the Patents Act, 1970, and in light of the statutory bar under Section 100A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, no intra-court commercial appeal could be entertained by the Division Bench.

The High Court accordingly held that the Commercial Appeal filed under Section 13(1-A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, was not maintainable and dismissed the appeal with no order as to costs.

Point of Law Settled

This judgement settles an important procedural principle regarding the jurisdiction of Commercial Appellate Divisions in patent disputes. It establishes that the right to appeal is purely statutory and cannot be inferred.

Once a statutory appeal against an order of a quasi-judicial authority, such as the Controller of Patents under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970, is decided by a Single Judge of the High Court, the statutory prohibition under Section 100A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 operates to bar any further intra-court appeal before a Division Bench under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

This ruling clarifies that quasi-judicial bodies holding trappings of a court fall within the scope of Section 100A CPC for the purpose of curtailing repetitive appellate litigation.

Legal Principles Emerging from the Judgement

• The right to appeal is purely statutory.
• No second intra-court appeal exists unless expressly provided by statute.
• A single judge deciding an appeal under Section 117A of the Patents Act acts in appellate jurisdiction.
• Section 100A CPC bars further intra-court appeals against appellate judgements.
• Quasi-judicial authorities possessing the trappings of a civil court are covered by Section 100A CPC.

Case Details

• Bar on Intra-Court Appeals in IPD Cases
• Policing Patents: Understanding the Limited Role of Law Enforcement under the Patents Act, 1970
• Patent Protection India
• No Intra-Court Appeal Against Single Judge’s Order Under Section 91 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999
• Penal Provisions Under the Patents Act, 1970: An In-Depth Examination

Important Links

Important Links:

• Lawyers in India
• Copyright Registration in India
• Caveat Filing in Supreme Court of India
• Mutual Consent Divorce in Delhi/NCR: WhatsApp 9650499965