| |
CDJ 2026 MHC 151
|
| Court : High Court of Judicature at Madras |
| Case No : L.P.A. SR. No. 168957 of 2024 |
| Judges: THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G. JAYACHANDRAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR |
| Parties : D. Pepi Devi Versus M/s. GM Modular Private Limited, Mumbai & Another |
| Appearing Advocates : For the Appellant: N. Nithianandam, Advocate. For the Respondents: -----. |
| Date of Judgment : 26-11-2025 |
| Head Note :- |
Letters Patent - Clause 15 -
Comparative Citation:
2026 (1) LW 74, |
| Summary :- |
1. Statutes / Acts / Rules Mentioned:
- Letters Patent Act
- Order 43, Rule 1 of C.P.C.
- Section 13 (1A) of Commercial Courts Act, 2015
- Commercial Courts Act, 2015
- Tribunals Reforms Act
2. Catch Words:
trademark, patent, rectification, intra‑court appeal, maintainability
3. Summary:
The learned Single Judge had allowed a common order in two original petitions, including OP(TM) No. 320 of 2023. The appellant filed a Letter Patent appeal under Clause 15, but the Registry questioned its maintainability, citing Order 43, Rule 1 of the CPC. The Court referred to Section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act and a Delhi High Court decision, holding that appeals from orders of a Single Judge in trademark or patent rectification matters fall under the Letters Patent jurisdiction, not the CPC. Consequently, the provisions of Order 43, Rule 1 CPC are inapplicable. The order is deemed final and appealable under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, making the appeal maintainable. The Registry was directed to number the appeal.
4. Conclusion:
Appeal Allowed |
| Judgment :- |
|
(Prayer: Letter Patent Appeal under Clause 15 of Letters Patent Act, to set aside the order dated 06.09.2024 passed in (T). OP(TM). No.320 of 2023.)
1. The Learned Single Judge allowed the common order in (T). OP(TM). Nos.319 & 320 of 2023, dated 06.09.2024.
2. The appellant/D. Pepi Devi, appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order passed in (T). OP(TM). No.320 of 2023, dated 06.09.2024. The Registry has returned the papers, raising the issue of Maintainability.
3. The Registry states that how the appeal will lie against the order which is not enumerated in Order 43, Rule 1 of C.P.C. Therefore, the matter is listed before us to decide on maintainability.
4. When a similar issue arose, this Court, after considering the language used in Section 13 (1A) of Commercial Courts Act, 2015, relied on the judgment of the Delhi High Court in V.R. Holdings Pvt Ltd vs. Hero Invest corp Limited and another, reported in 2023 SCC Online Del 4673, held that in case of an order passed by the Learned Single Judge in an Original Petition filed for rectification of a Trademark or patent, the High Court would be exercising its power not under the Code of Civil Procedure but under Letters Patent Jurisdiction. Therefore, the provisions of Order 43, Rule 1 of C.P.C., cannot be looked into for maintainability of the appeal.
5. The order is passed in the Intellectual Property Division and not the Commercial Court Division, insofar as rectification which reaches finality on its disposal, ought to have been taken as a judgment passed in exercise of power under Clause 12 of Letters Patent. Consequently, the appeal under Clause 15 of Letters Patent is held to be maintainable.
6. Therefore, being a final order, we hold the order passed by the Learned Single Judge in (T). OP(TM). No.320 of 2023 is appealable, under Clause 15 of Letters Patent is maintainable.
7. The order which is final in nature and arising out of statute upon which the High Court has assumed jurisdiction in view of the Tribunals Reforms Act under which the IPAB was abolished, the provisions under Section 13 (1A) of the Commercial Courts Act shall not stand in the way of the appellant's right to challenge the order passed by the Learned Single Judge through an intra-court appeal by invoking the powers under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.
8. Accordingly, the Registry is directed to number the appeal, if it is otherwise in order.
|
| |
