Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.

1. This intra-court appeal impugns the judgment dated 29th November, 2011 of the Single Judge of this Court allowing W.P.(C) No.7882/2010 preferred by the respondent by directing the restoration and renewal of the Trademark of the respondent. Notice of this appeal and of the application for condonation of delay of 224 days in filing the appeal was issued. Though the respondent has filed a reply opposing condonation of delay but considering the fact that the question raised is of interpretation of statutory provisions and likely to have widespread ramifications, the senior counsel for the respondent at the time of hearing did not oppose the hearing of the appeal on merits. We, for the reasons stated in the application for seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal, condone the said delay.

2. The writ petition from which this appeal arises was filed by the respondent pleading:-

(i). that the predecessors of the respondent, (which is stated to be a partnership firm of Ms. Satish Bala Malhotra, Ms. Monica Malhotra Kandhari and Ms. Sonica Malhotra Kandhari) namely Shri Ashok Kumar Malhotra and late Shri Balbir Singh, trading as M/s. Malhotra Book Depot had applied for and were granted registration of the Trademark “MBD” in Class 16 for the goods “publications (printed) and books” vide Trade Mark Registration dated 23rd November, 1970;

(ii). the said trademark was thereafter duly renewed from 23rd November, 1977 to 23rd November, 1984;

(iii). on 1st April, 1992 the constitution of M/s Malhotra Book Depot was changed and a fresh Partnership Deed was executed between the new partners i.e. Shri Ashok Kumar Malhotra and Ms. Satish Bala Malhotra;

(iv). on the demise of Shri Ashok Kumar Malhotra the constitution of the respondent M/s Malhotra Book Depot was again changed and a fresh Partnership Deed was executed between Ms. Satish Bala Malhotra, Ms. Monika Malhotra Kandhari and Ms. Sonica Malhotra Kandhari on 30th December, 2009;

(v). that in April, 2010 the respondent filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining infringement of the Trademark MBD and in connection with the said suit applied for Certificate for Use in Legal Proceedings – however the application was returned by the appellant no.3 Registrar of Trade Marks as no records/details of the said Trademark could be traced in the database of the Registrar – in the consequent investigation by the respondent it was realized that the Trademark had not been renewed after 23rd November, 1984;

(vi). the petitioner on 7th October, 2010 applied for renewal and restoration of the said Trademark but which application was not accepted.

The respondent accordingly sought a writ of mandamus for restoration and renewal of the Trademark. It was inter alia the case of the respondent that the statutory Notice in Form O-3 under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Rules, 1959 (the Rules) (which were applicable at the relevant time) informing the petitioner that the registration of the mark was expiring and can be renewed was not sent by the Registrar to the respondent and the Registrar could not thus deny restoration/renewal of the Trademark.

3. The Registrar of Trademarks contested the writ petition aforesaid by filing a counter affidavit pleading:-

(I). that the renewal of the mark had become due on 23rd November, 1984 i.e. 26 years prior to the filing of the writ petition and the writ petition suffered from delay and laches;

(II). that the factum of removal of the Trademark was notified in the Trade Mark Journal No.997 dated 16th December, 1990 for non-payment of renewal fees;

(III). that such removal could not be without following the due process as per the provisions of law and the respondent was taking advantage of the fact that the 26 years old records of dispatch of Notice in Form O-3 would not be available with the Registrar;

(IV). that on receipt of complaints regarding non-receipt of Registration Certificates and non-issuance of the Form O-3 N