Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(DEL) 7827
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Order reserved on: 21 August 2023 Order pronounced on: 06 September 2023 + LPA 136/2023 and CM APPL. 8810/2023(Stay) and CM APPL. 8811/2023(Summoning of Complete Record) and CM APPL. 8813/2023(Addl. Document) and CM APPL.
14104/2023 (Addl. Document)
PROMOSHIRT SM SA ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Chander M. Lall, Sr. Adv.
with Ms. Swathi Sukumar, Mr. Essenese Obhan, Mr. Ritik Raghuvansh, Mr. Pratyush Rao, Mr. Naveen Nagarjuna, Ms. Ayesha, Ms. Amira Dhawan Advs. versus ARMASSUISSE AND ANOTHER ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Pravin Anand, Mr.
Shrawan Chopra, Ms. Madhu Rewaria, Ms. Shree Mishra, Mr. Achyut Tewari and Ms. S.
Singh, Advs. for R-1.
+ LPA 137/2023 and CM APPL. 8825/2023(Stay)
PROMOSHIRT SM SA. ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Chander M. Lall, Sr. Adv.
with Ms. Swathi Sukumar, Mr. Essenese Obhan, Mr. Ritik Raghuvansh, Mr. Pratyush Rao, Mr. Naveen Nagarjuna, Ms. Ayesha, Ms. Amira Dhawan Advs.
versus ARMASUISSE AND ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Pravin Anand, Mr.
Shrawan Chopra, Ms. Madhu Rewaria, Ms. Shree Mishra, Mr. Achyut Tewari and Ms. S.
Singh, Advs. for R-1.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DHARMESH SHARMA
O R D E R
YASHWANT VARMA, J.
1. The present Letters Patent Appeals1 have been preferred assailing the judgment dated 04 January 2023 handed down by the learned Single Judge. The aforesaid decision has undisputedly been rendered on appeals which had been preferred against the order dated 25 July 2022 of the Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks, in terms of which the notice of opposition filed by Armasuisse came to be rejected and the applications for registration of trademarks as made by Promoshirt SM SA, were directed to be accepted and processed further for registration under the provisions of the Trade Marks Act, 19992. The jurisdiction of the learned Single Judge was invoked in terms of Section 91 of the 1999 TM Act, which contemplates an
appeal being preferred to the High Court against an order or decision of the Registrar made under the 1999 TM Act.
2. The respondents have taken a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the instant LPAs asserting that the same would not be maintainable in light of Section 100-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 19083. Section 100-A which was originally introduced in 1976 and as it stands presently is extracted hereinbelow in tabular form: -
| Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act 104 of 1976 | Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1999 (46 of 1999) | Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002 (22 of 2002) |
| [100A. No further appeal in certain cases.- Notwithstanding anything contained in any Letters Patent for any High Court or in any other instrument having the force of law or in any other law for the time being in force, where any appeal from an appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie from the judgment, decision or order of such Single Judge in such appeal or from any decree passed in such appeal.] | 10. Substitution of new section for Section 100-A.—For Section 100-A of the principal Act, the following section shall be substituted, namely:— “100-A. No further appeal in certain cases.— Notwithstanding anything contained in any Letters Patent for any High Court or in any other instrument having the force of law or in any other law for the time being in force,— (a) where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or | 4. Substitution of new section for Section 100- A.—For Section 100-A of the principal Act [as substituted by Section 10 of the Civil Procedure Code (Amendment) Act, 1999 (46 of 1999)], the following section shall be substituted, namely:— “100-A. No further appeal in certain cases.— Notwithstanding anything contained in any Letters Patent for any High Court or in any instrument having the force of law or in any other law for the time being in force, where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High |
| order is heard and decided, (b) where any writ, direction or order is issued or made on an application under Article 226 or Article 227 of the Constitution, by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie from the judgment, decision or order of such Single Judge.” | Court, no further appeal shall lie from the judgment and decree of such Single Judge.”. |
3. Mr. Anand, learned counsel addressing submissions on behalf of the respondent no.1, has submitted that in terms of Section 100A of the Code, since the learned Single Judge was exercising appellate jurisdiction, no further appeal would lie in light of the unambiguous language of the aforenoted provision. Mr. Anand submitted that Section 100-A of the Code, in terms of its‟ express language is ordained to override anything to the contrary contained in any Letters Patent of any High C
