Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi High Court - Orders

Itc Limited vs Philip Morris Products S.A. & Ors on 21 April, 2022

Author: Jyoti Singh

Bench: Jyoti Singh

                          $~44
                          *    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                          +      C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 24/2022 & I.A. 6106/2022
                                 ITC LIMITED                                        ..... Appellant
                                                       Through: Mr. Adarsh Ramanujan, Mr. Samik
                                                       Mukherjee and Mr. Afzal B. Khan, Advocates.

                                                       versus

                                 PHILIP MORRIS PRODUCTS S.A. & ORS.        ..... Respondents
                                               Through: Ms. Manisha Singh, Mr. Abhai
                                               Pandey, Mr. Varun Sharma and Mr. Gautam
                                               Kumar, Advocates for R-1.
                                               Mr. Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, Central
                                               Government Standing Counsel with Ms. S. Bushra
                                               Kazim and Mr. Srish Kumar Mishra, Advocates
                                               for R-2 and 3.
                                 CORAM:
                                 HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH
                                                       ORDER

                          %                            21.04.2022
                          1.     Issue notice.

2. Ms. Manisha Singh, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of Respondent No. 1.

3. Mr. Harish Vaidyanathan, learned Central Government Standing Counsel accepts notice on behalf of Respondents No. 2 and 3.

4. Present Appeal has been filed on behalf of the Appellant, who was the Opponent in the Post-grant Opposition Proceedings, impugning the order of the learned Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs dated 03.01.2022, passed under Section 25(4) of the Patents Act, 1970, whereby the Post-grant opposition against the Patentee/Respondent No.1's patent No. IN319780 has Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 24/2022 Page 1 of 3 By:KAMAL KUMAR Signing Date:11.05.2022 17:59:27 been rejected and the patent has been maintained.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant, at the outset, submits that the impugned order is a non-speaking and unreasoned order, bereft of any analysis or findings to arrive at the decision and Respondent No.2 has even failed to record some of the substantial submissions of the Appellant, both on law and facts, brought out during the hearing as well as in pleadings. It is urged that the Appellant would be satisfied if on this short ground, the matter is remanded to Respondent No.2 for considering the matter afresh and passing a reasoned and a speaking order.

6. Learned counsels appearing for the Respondents do not contest the position that the impugned order is a non-speaking and unreasoned order and have no objection to the matter being remanded.

7. It is a well-settled law that orders passed by a Quasi-judicial or even an Administrative Authority, affecting the right of the parties, must be speaking orders. Merely giving an opportunity of hearing is not enough and the reasons in an order form the heart and soul of the decision, which not only enable parties to the lis to know the basis of the decision but also where the order is subject to appeal, the higher forum has the benefit of knowing what weighed with the Authority/Court in coming to its conclusions. Giving reasons also prevents unfairness and arbitrariness in reaching the conclusions and is based on the principle that justice must not only be done but should also appear to be done and is also a facet of the Principles of Natural Justice. Supreme Court has from time to time reaffirmed the position that reasons are an indispensable component of a decision-making process and insistence on reasons is a requirement for both judicial accountability and transparency.

8. Keeping the above principles in mind and with the consent of the parties, the matter is remanded and Respondent No.2 is directed to pass a reasoned and speaking order after hearing the parties. Needless to state that Respondent No.2 shall be free to adjudicate the opposition filed by the Appellant in the manner he deems it appropriate, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in accordance with law.

9. It is open to the parties to raise their respective contentions before Respondent No.2 and it is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.

10. The decision shall be taken by Respondent No.2 as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of 8 weeks from today.

11. Appeal is partially allowed and disposed of in the aforesaid terms and the impugned order dated 03.01.2022, is hereby set-aside.

12. Pending application is also disposed of.

JYOTI SINGH, J APRIL 21, 2022/sn Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 24/2022 Page 3 of 3 By:KAMAL KUMAR Signing Date:11.05.2022 17:59:27