SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Cal) 3740

CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Om Narayan Rai, J
M/S.The Fair Dealers Corporation – Appellant
Versus
The State of West Bengal – Respondent
WPA 14241 of 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. N.I. Khan, Mr. Amlan Kumar Mukherjee
For the Respondents: Mr. Pantu Deb Roy, Mr. Subrata Guha Biswas, Kanishk Sinha

Statutory rights for vehicle registration must comply with specified regulations while considering existing legal precedents.

Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1989 - Rule 126 - Registration of battery operated e-rickshaws - Petitioners claim quashing of restraining directions on issuance of certificate of registration - Court finds petitioners similarly circumstanced as previous case, defining conditions for registration compliance with statutory and safety regulations - Direction issued for registration subject to conditions and due considerations - No order as to costs. (Paras 3, 4, 8, 9)

(B) Writ jurisdiction - This Court directs compliance with statutory requirements for registration and considers prior relevant judgments - Disposition of case upon similarities with previously determined issues. (Paras 7, 10)

The petitioners claim to be the manufacturers of e-rickshaws. The petitioners are aggrieved by the non- issuance of certificate of registration in respect of vehicles (e-rickshaws) manufactured by the petitioner No. 1.

The petitioners refer to a Memo dated January

13, 2022 issued by the Additional Director, Transport Directorate whereby the RTO/ARTO (All) have been requested “to follow the restraining direction of the Hon’ble Court, in connection with registration of battery operated Eco-friendly e-rickshaws until any further order is received from any other competent Court of Law” and Memo dated July 13, 2022 whereby the Special Secretary, Transport Department has requested the Director, Transport Directorate “to pass necessary instruction to the Registering Authority for taking necessary action in compliance with the order dated June, 3, 2022 in terms of Notification No. 612-WT/3M-09/2013 dated February 25, 2013 and the terms and conditions as specified in the certificate as issued by the Certification Authority CAT”

and seek quashing thereof.

Mr. Khan, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners invites the attention of this Court to an order dated May 8, 2025 passed in WPA 10127 of 2025 (M/s. Blue Edge Trade Venture Private Limited & Ors. vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.) whereby this Court had disposed of the writ petition with a direction upon the Transport Department, Directorate, Government of West Bengal to issue necessary direction upon the concerned regional transport offices to grant registration to the e- vehicles manufactured by the petitioners subject to the said vehicles being different and distinct from the category forming subject matter of the title suit pending before the learned Additional District Judge, 13th Court, Alipore, and subject to compliance with Rule 126 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 and all other formalities prescribed under the Act/Rules by the petitioners and also upon consideration of relevant documents to be placed by the petitioners before the authority”.

Mr. Khan submits that the case of the petitioners herein is similar to that of the petitioners in WPA 10127 of 2025 and that similar order as the one passed in WPA

10127 of 2025 may be passed herein.

Mr. Deb Roy, learned advocate appearing for the State-respondents submits that several similar orders have been passed by this Court in similar matters and the same may be followed.

Mr. Kanishk Sinha, the respondent No. 6, appears in-person and hands up to this Court a copy of an order dated April 22, 2025 passed by the Hon’ble Division bench of this Court in MAT 903 of 2024 with CAN 2 of 2024 ( Gunjan Sinha @ Kanishk Sinha and Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors.). He specifically points out the following observations made in the said order.

“…..The said sub-section states that on and from the grant of patent in respect of such application, the applicant shall have the like privileges and rights as if a patent for invention had been granted on the date of publication of the application. At this juncture, it is to be noted that the patent rights are statutory rights and no common law rights are available in patents. Hence, an action for infringement would be maintainable only if the patent is granted and the patent is live……”

Relying on the aforesaid observations of the Hon’ble Division Bench, Mr. Sinha submits that in terms thereof the tenure of the patent granted in favour of Mr. Sinha shall be twenty years from the date of publication of such patent. He submits that such publication of his patent was done in the year 2013.

Mr. Sinha invites the attention of this Court to an order dated June 17, 2025 passed in GA No. 3378 of 2014, CS No. 388 of 2014 ( Jasper Motors Private Ltd. & Anr. vs. The proprietor, Basantee Battery Operated Rickshaw & Ors.) wherein it has beenobserved that the plaintiff in the said suit is “a patent holder for the novelty introduced in the echo-friendly vehicle. The novelty is that the fuel cell (battery) is mounte

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top