Scooters India Ltd. vs Java Hind Industries Ltd. on 23 July, 1987
Then, Mr. Bhushan submitted that under sub-section (4) of Section 73 of the Act the Controller is empowered to withdraw any matter pending before an officer appointed under sub-section (2) of that section and deal with such matter either himself or transfer the same to any other officer appointed under sub-section (2). He said that in case the proceedings pending in the Patents Office at Bombay are transferred to Delhi, then could it be said that the Bombay High Court still had the jurisdiction or it was the Delhi High Court which would have the jurisdiction. Again, I am not called upon to decide this point, though it was submitted by Mr. N.K. Anand that the proceedings as such are not transferred but any other officer would continue to hold proceedings at Bombay. Reliance was also placed by Mr. Bhushan on a Division Bench decision of the Gujarat High Court in Anup Engineering Ltd. v. The Controller of Patents New Delhi, (First Appeal No. 600 of 1980 and Special Civil Application No. 2767 of 1980) decided on 19th February, 1982. No doubt, the very point which is now being agitated before me was also raised in the Gujarat High Court. The Court, however, did not express any opinion but stated as under :- "Without entering into controversy whether a first appeal or a special civil application is maintainable in this Court, this is a fit case even having regard to our powers under Article 226 of the Constitution, that the necessary relief must be given to the petitioner-Company whose only grievance is that the petitioner-company must be heard before the grant of any patent to respondent No. 3."