SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
L. Nageswara Rao, Hemant Gupta, S. Ravindra Bhat, JJ.
The International Association for Protection of Intellectual Property (India Group) – Applicant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
Miscellaneous Application No.2219 of 2020 In W.P.(C) No.1431 of 2019
Decided On : 12-02-2021
Trade Marks Act, 1999 – Sections 84, 86, 87 and 89A – Finance Act, 2017 – Section 184 – Appointment of Chairperson of Intellectual Property Appellate Board – Present incumbent to office of Chairperson of Board was appointed as Chairman, Appellate Tribunal for Forfeited Property (ATFP) – Terms and conditions under which he was appointed have not been placed on record; however, it appointment was soon after he demitted office as Judge of Delhi High Court, sometime after September 2016 – On 26.07.2017, he was also given additional charge of Chairman in IPAB, i.e. Board, in terms of then extant 2017 Rules, for a period of three years or until further orders – Central Government had fixed tenure of chairperson of Board to be three years – In absence of any member, chairperson may, if the occasion so arises, act as technical or judicial member – Section 87 enables a vice-chairperson, or senior-most member of Board to act as Chairperson in the event of a vacancy to that position, or in the event of incumbent’s inability to function in the post – There is no bar for a technical member to be appointed as a regular chairperson, provided she or he has for at least two years, held the office of a Vice-Chairperson – These members had practical legal experience of ten to fifteen years – Fact that they were appointed as technical members cannot obfuscate fact that they are legally trained and qualified – Argument that technical members, in their position at Board as of now, cannot function without a Chairperson, is unsustainable – Applicant cannot be granted any relief – Application dismissed. (Paras 17, 23, 25 and 26)
Facts of the case:
Present judgement will dispose of an application by which directions are sought that till a new chairperson of the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB), is appointed, the incumbent (whose tenure had been extended by interim orders of this court, up to 31.12.2020) should continue to function as Chairperson.
Findings of Court:
Section 84 (2) of the TM Act no doubt states that a bench of the board shall consist of a judicial and a technical member. However, it is “subject to other provisions” of TM Act. Section 84(3) commences with a non obstante clause and stipulates, by Section 84(3)(a) that a chairperson may, “in addition to discharging the functions of Judicial Member or Technical Member of the Bench to which he is appointed, discharge the functions of the Judicial Member or, as the case may be, the Technical Member, of any other Bench.”
Result : Application dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.
1. This judgment will dispose of an application by which directions are sought that till a new chairperson of the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (hereafter referred to as “the board” or “IPAB”), is appointed, the incumbent (whose tenure had been extended by interim orders of this court, up to 31.12.2020) should continue to function as Chairperson.
2. The applicant (the International Association for Protection of Intellectual Property [India Group]) had preferred a Writ Petition (WP(C) 1431/2019), which was disposed of by this court by a judgment along with a batch of other petitions and applications on 27th November 2020, in the judgment reported as Madras Bar Association v Union of India, (2020) SCC OnLine SC 962. The applicant seeks extension of the term of the incumbent Chairperson of the board stating that his appointment was made under section 89A of the Trademarks Act, 1999 (“TM Act” hereafter). The applicant urges that Section 184 of the Finance Act, 2017, prescribes the term of office and the conditions of service of Chairperson and members of various tribunals including that of the Board. Section 161 of the Finance Act inserted Section 89A to the TM Act-which stipulates that the term of office of appointments to the board after the date of commencement of the Finance Act would be governed by the provisions of the Section 184 of the said Finance Act. The outer limit prescribing the age limit of the chairperson of the board is 70 years, in terms of Section 184.
3. It is contended that in the judgment in Rojer Mathew [Rojer Mathew v. South Indian Bank Ltd., (2020) 6 SCC 1.] this court had directed that appointments made to the board preceding the rules framed in 2020 under the Finance Act within (hereafter the 2020 Rules) were governed by the parent enactment. Reliance is placed on the relevant extract of the main judgment of this court in this regard (para 53 [xv]). It is stated that the parent Act in this case is the Trademarks Act (hereafter the ‘TM Act’). In this context, it is contended that since the outer limit of the tenure of the chairperson is 70 years under the parent Act, i.e. the TM Act, the age of 65 years contemplated under Section 86 of that Act no longer applies.
4. Learned counsel contrasts Section 86 and Section 89 of the TM Act and contends that though Section 86 on the one hand prescribes the outer age limit (for the tenure of chairperson) as 65 years, that is over borne by the provisions of section 89A, which states that the terms and conditions hitherto applicable would no longer be so and that in matters of conditions of service and tenure of appointment, the provisions of section 184 of the Finance Act would apply. It is contended by senior counsel that the Rules were originally framed with effect from 01.06.2017, under which the present incumbent was appointed. These rules were set aside by Rojer Mathew, in which all sitting members and chairpersons of various tribunals were protected, till new rules were framed. The Rules framed in 2020, have now been substantially read down or quashed. The clarification that the present incumbent, in fact, would continue to hold office in spite of attaining the age of 65 years, logically flows from the ruling in Madras Bar Association (supra). A clarification of this is essential, given that in law, the outer limit has now been extended to 70 years. The attention of this court is also drawn to para 53 (ix) of the judgment of this court dated 27th November 2020.
5. Learned counsel relied upon the said judgment. It was argued that the orders made by this court during the pendency of that case, till final judgment, i.e. dated 27th of November, 2020 protected the tenures of all incumbent tribunal members and their chairpersons. Specific reliance was placed upon the order dated 16th September 2020, which had extended the tenure of office of all incumbent members of all tribunals, to 31st December, 2020. The applicant also urged that
Madras Bar Association v Union of India
Rojer Mathew v. South Indian Bank Ltd.
Kudrat Sandhu v Union of India 2018 SCC Online 1335 (SC) – Referred [Para 20]
Kudrat Sandhu v Union of India 2018 (18) SCC 796 – Referred [Para 21]
Technical Members can function as Chairperson of Intellectual Property Appellate Board.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the provisions of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 and the Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021, particularly regarding the conti....
Pension benefits for Members (Judicial) of the Railway Claims Tribunal are governed strictly by applicable statutory rules, and prior legal practice cannot be included as qualifying service.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of the retirement age of Presiding Officers of Industrial Tribunals, based on the conflicting provisions of the Kerala Service Ru....
Courts will not entertain pleas for extension of tenures when members have accepted initial appointments and when such extension would interfere with ongoing selection processes.
Retirement from service – Pensionery Benefit of – Court inclined to order that until fresh regular appointment is made to fill up post of Chief Executive Officer/Secretary of Wakf Board writ petition....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of appointing a Judicial Member from the judiciary or the bar to maintain the independence of the judicial system.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.