Saurabh Arora vs The Controller Of Patents And Designs on 10 March, 2026
C. Crucially, in the present case, though the Controller has
acknowledged the relevant dates of priority and publication and has
noted the existence of the rival claims, yet has inexplicably failed to
Page 18 of 20
Meera Jadhav
::: Uploaded on - 11/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 11/03/2026 20:37:12 :::
4-COMMP-46-2025
explain why D1 does not qualify as an "appropriate disclosure". This
is not a case of inadequate reasoning, but it is a case of absence of
reasoning. The impugned order, therefore, reflects complete non-
application of mind on the part of the Controller to the statutory
requirements under Section 25(2)(c).The reliance placed by
Respondent No. 2 on the decisions in Zarif Ahmad v. Mohd. Farooq
and Maya Devi v. Raj Kumari Batra & Ors. is, in my view, entirely
misplaced and has no application to the facts of the present case. As
already noted above, the impugned order is entirely bereft of reasons,
and therefore the question of this Court assessing the correctness of
such reasoning does not arise. What the Controller is in effect seeking
is for this Court to undertake the exercise of examining the matter
afresh in the first instance. In my view, to countenance such a stand
would, in my view, amount to effectively permitting the Controller
to abdicate its statutory duties under the provisions of the Patents Act
by considering opposition proceedings and passing a reasoned order.
Page 19 of 20
Meera Jadhav
::: Uploaded on - 11/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 11/03/2026 20:37:12 :::
4-COMMP-46-2025