2026 Supreme(Bom) 356

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BHARATI DANGRE, MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, JJ.
Vishal Prafulsingh Solanke and Another – Appellants
Versus
Controller of Patent and Designs and Others – Respondents
Commercial Appeal (L) No. 13430 of 2025, Commercial Miscellaneous Petition No. 110 of 2025
Decided On : 09-03-2026

No intra-court appeal under Commercial Courts Act lies against Single Judge order on Patents Act appeal due to CPC Section 100A bar, Controller possessing Civil Court trappings as quasi-judicial authority.

Headnote:(A) Patents Act, 1970 - Sections 117A, 25(1)(b), 25(1)(e), 77 - Commercial Courts Act, 2015 - Section 13(1-A), proviso, (2) - CPC - Section 100A, Order XLIII - Appeal under Section 13(1-A) against Single Judge judgment dismissing appeal under Section 117A against patent refusal - Single Judge exercises appellate jurisdiction qua commercial dispute as Commercial Division - Judgment (final adjudication) appealable under main part of Section 13(1-A), proviso restricting only specified interlocutory orders - However, barred by Section 100A prohibiting further appeal from Single Judge judgment on appeal from original/appellate decree/order, Controller having trappings of Civil Court under Section 77 (quasi-judicial powers akin to Civil Court trying suit: summoning witnesses, evidence on affidavit, costs executable as decree) - No second appeal where special statute provides only single appellate forum to High Court (Paras 19(a)-(c), 22-26, 33-40, 54-56)

(B) Commercial Courts Act, 2015 - Section 16 - Amendments to CPC apply to trial of commercial suits; other CPC provisions (including Section 100A on appeals) apply unless excluded - Section 13(2) mandates appeals only per Act, but does not override CPC bars (Paras 25-26)

(C) Quasi-judicial authorities - Distinguished from administrative: duty to act judicially, determine rights, trappings include Civil Court powers (summoning, discovery, evidence, costs) - Controller in patent opposition/grant proceedings exercises such functions (Paras 38-40)

Facts of the case:
Patent application refused post pre-grant opposition succeeding under Sections 25(1)(b),(e). Appeal under Section 117A to Single Judge (Commercial Division) dismissed, upholding refusal. Commercial Appeal under Section 13(1-A) filed before Division Bench, challenged on maintainability.

Findings of Court:
Proceedings before Single Judge appellate under Section 117A, not original. Appeal under Section 13(1-A) barred by Section 100A CPC.

Issues: (a) Maintainability under Section 13(1-A), proviso effect on judgments vs orders; (b) Availability of further appeal absent Patents Act bar; (c) Section 100A applicability, Controller as Civil Court (Para 19).

Ratio Decidendi: Single Judge judgment appealable as 'judgment' under Section 13(1-A) main provision (proviso limits interlocutory orders), but Section 100A bars intra-court appeal from appellate decision of Single Judge against quasi-judicial order with Civil Court trappings; special statutes' single appeal to High Court exhaustive, no implied second appeal; purposive intent to curtail multiplicity (Paras 24-28, 35-36, 56).

Result: Commercial Appeal not maintainable, dismissed.