JUDGMENT (Oral)

C.Hari Shankar, J.

1. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, whereby the petitioner Natco Pharma Ltd. (Natco) assails order dated 14th December 2022, passed by the Learned Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, allowing Indian Patent Application no. 4412/DELNP/2007, filed by Respondent 2 - Novartis AG (Novartis) on 8th June 2007.

2. By consent of learned Counsel for the parties, Mr J Sai Deepak and Mr. Hemant Singh, the Court has heard the matter finally and proceeds to dispose of the writ petition.

3. Novartis has assailed the maintainability of this petition under Article 226, as alternate remedies, by way of rectification and correction of the register of trade marks under Section 71(1)^1[71. Rectification of register by High Court -

(1) The High Court may, on the application of any person aggrieved -

(a) by the absence or omission from the register of any entry; or

(b) by any entry made in the register without sufficient cause; or

(c) by any entry wrongly remaining on the register; or

(d) by any error or defect in any entry in the register,

make such order for the making of variation or deletion, of any entry therein, as it may think fit.

^] of the Trade Marks Act, is available to the petitioner.

4. At the outset of hearing, therefore, it was made clear by the Court that the Court would not be examining, in the present proceedings, the merits of the impugned order, i.e. the patentability or otherwise of the invention claimed by Novartis. As such, Mr. Sai Deepak, learned Counsel for Natco, too, restricted his challenge to the aspect of procedural irregularity and violation of the principles of natural justice in the passing of impugned order dated 14th December 2022. He has cited the decisions of the Supreme Court in Whirlpool Corpn. v. Registrar of Trademarks, (1998) 8 SCC 1 and Harbans Lal Sahnia v. Indian Oil Corporation, (2003) 2 SCC 107 among others, to contend that, where a quasi judicial order is passed in violation of the principles of natural justice or in the teeth of the provisions in that regard as they find place in the relevant statutory instruments, a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution would be maintainable.

5. I would advert to the issue of maintainability towards the conclusion of this decision. One may, at the outset, refer to the relevant facts, insofar as they are necessary for the purposes of the limited scope of the present examination.

The lis

6. Following a PCT Application dated 16th January 2003, and claiming priority from US Provisional 60/349660, Novartis filed a National Phase Application No. 1538/CHENP/2004, for grant of a patent titled 'Pharmaceutical Compositions comprising Valsartan and NEP inhibitors' which was granted by the Controller of Patents on 13th February 2009 as IN 229051 (IN'051).

7. Subsequently, on 8th June 2007, Novartis filed National Phase Application No.4412/DELNP/2007 (hereinafter 'Application No. 4412'), relatable to PCT WO2207/056456 and claiming priority on the basis of four US Provisional Patents No. 60/735093 dated 9th November 2005, 60/735541 dated 10th November 2005, 60/789332 dated 4th April 2006 and 60/8822086 dated 11th August 2006, for a patent titled 'pharmaceutical combinations of an Angiotensin Receptor Antagonist and an NEP Inhibitor'. At the time when the claims were filed as WO546, there were 85 claims. However, as filed in Application No. 4412, there were 29 claims.

8. Application No. 4412, as filed by Novartis, was subjected to examination by the examiner in the office of the Controller of Patents. The examiner issued a first examination report dated 30