Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. M.Y.EQBAL & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM
Aloys Wobben
Versus
Enercon (India) Limited
W.P. No. 20165 of 2010 & M.P. Nos. 1 & 2 of 2010
Decided On : 09-2010
Patents Act - Locus Standi - Section 64, Articles 128(1), 157, 158(1), 170(14), 171(4) - The court discussed the issue of locus standi of the Managing Director of the company to maintain the application for revocation under the Patents Act. The court emphasized the need to consider all issues instead of disposing of the case on only one issue, as there was a possibility of appeal. The Tribunal was directed to consider the miscellaneous petitions along with the Original Revocation Applications and dispose of the same within three months.
Fact of the Case:
The writ petitioner sought to quash the orders passed by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board in various miscellaneous petitions filed for revocation of a patent granted under the Patents Act. The main ground for the miscellaneous petitions was the lack of competence of the first respondent to file the revocation petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Tribunal rightly directed the miscellaneous petitions to be considered along with the Original Revocation Applications and ordered the Tribunal to dispose of the same within three months.
Issues: The issues included the locus standi of the Managing Director to maintain the revocation application, the possibility of appeal, and the urgency of taking up the Original Revocation Application for consideration.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need to consider all issues instead of disposing of the case on only one issue, as there was a possibility of appeal.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the Tribunal was requested to take up the Original Revocation Application along with the miscellaneous petition and dispose of the same within three months.
T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J.
1. The prayer in the writ petition is for issuance of writ of Certiorari to quash the orders passed by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board, (hereinafter referred to "as the Tribunal") the second respondent herein, in various miscellaneous petitions filed by the petitioner in the Original Revocation Applications pending before the Tribunal.
2. The matter arises under the Patents Act. The facts which are necessary for the disposal of the writ petition could be briefly set out as hereunder:-
The first respondent herein (hereinafter referred to "as the Company") had filed 18 Original Revocation Applications before the Tribunal for revocation of the patent granted in favour of the writ petitioner under Section 64 of the Patents Act. In the said original revocation application, the writ petitioner filed the miscellaneous petitions for dismissal of the original petitions. The case of the writ petitioner was that he is the owner of the various Patents, pursuant to the grant of Patent by the Patent office during 2006 and the first respondent company filed original applications for revocation of the Patents and these applications were pending before the second respondent Tribunal. In those applications, the writ petitioner has filed individual miscellaneous petitions with the prayer to dismiss the revocation petition filed by the first respondent company and to fix an early date for hearing the miscellaneous petitions challenging the maintainability of the revocation petition.
3. The main ground on which the miscellaneous petitions were filed is by stating that in terms of the Articles of Association of the first respondent company Mr.Yogesh Mehra lacks the competence to file the petition for revocation of the Patents and reliance was placed on Articles 128(1), 157, 158(1), 170(14) and 171(4) of the Articles of Association of the company. It was further contended that even assuming without admitting Mr.Yogesh Mehra had such a power, the same are not unfettered and that the applicant has initiated proceedings before the Company Law Board (CLB) and the same is pending and the Company Law Board by its order dated 24.09.2007 in petition No.121 of 2007 in C.A.No.484 of 2007 has granted an order of status quo to be maintained with regard to all issues pending in the proceedings and no further action could be taken without leave of the Board, in terms of the subsequent order dated 19.05.2008. In the above stated background, the writ petitioner sought for dismissal of the revocation petition.
4. The first respondent resisted the application by filing a reply, inter alia contending that the miscellaneous petition for revocation has been affirmed by one Mr.Balan Kombi and no documentary proof has been shown that the said Mr.Balan Kombi is competent to affirm the reply and that as per the Board resolution dated 27.04.2007, Mr.Yogesh Mehra has been duly authorised to defend and institute suits and proceedings on behalf of the company and that in terms of the said resolution, Mr.Yogesh Mehra, being the Managing Director has the requisite locus standi to file and institute the revocation proceedings on behalf of the company.
5. Apart from the above, in the reply, the respondent company also raised various factual matters in reply to the allegation made by the writ petitioner in the miscellaneous petitions. The writ petitioner has in turn filed a rejoinder to the reply statement contending that the Board resolution dated 27.04.2007, relied on by the respondent is void and non-est and thus Mr.Yogesh Mehra has no locus standi to file the revocation petition, that the various factual allegations in the reply have been denied. Similarly, in each of the other miscellaneous petitions separate affidavits, reply and rejoinders have been filed.
6. The Tribunal took up the miscellaneous petitions for hearing and appears to have heard the matters at length and ultimately after discussing the factual and the legal position
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
