An intra-Court appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is not maintainable against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal under Section 117A of the Patents Act, as Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act prevails over the Letters Patent.

O R D E R

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM,J.

1. The Original Side Appeal(CAD)SR.No72443 of 2025 has been

instituted challenging the appeal order passed by the learned Single

Judge of the High Court of Madras in CMA(PT) No.45 of 2023 dated

20.12.2025 under Section 117A of the Patents Act,1970. C.M.A. was

filed against the order dated 20.12.2024 of the Deputy Controller of

Patents & Designs passed under section 15 of 1970, rejecting the grant

of patent in the matter of Patent Application No.10810/CHENP/2012.

2. Registry, High Court raised an objection regarding the

maintainability of the Original Side Appeal on the ground that “It may be

stated how the OSA is maintainable under clause 15 of Letters Patent

against the judgment passed in CMA(PT).”

3. In reply to the maintainability note, the learned counsel for the

appellant would mainly contend that the order of the learned Single

Judge in the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is to be construed as an Order

in-original. Therefore, the intra-Court appeal would lie under Clause 15 of

Letters Patent. He would further contend that the learned Single Judge

decided the correctness of the order passed by the Deputy Controller of

Patents & Designs under Patent Act. Therefore, an intra-Court appeal

would lie against the order of the learned Single Judge akin to that of an

order passed in the writ petition, which can be taken by way of an intra

Court appeal under Clause 15 of Letters Patent.

4. In the absence of any provision for intra-Court appeal, no appeal

would lie. In this context, it is necessary for this Court to examine the

provisions of law to decide the maintainability issue raised by the

Registry, Madras High Court.

5. Section 117A contemplates appeal against the order passed by

the authority under Clause 15 of the Patent Act, 1970. In the present

case, the Deputy Controller Patents and Designs, admittedly, passed the

order under Section 15 of the Patents Act. Therefore, Appeal under

Section 117A of the Patent Act has been entertained, numbered as

miscellaneous appeal, adjudicated and a final order has been passed by

the learned single Judge of this Court.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would rely on

section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act 1913 by stating that intra-Court

Appeal under Clause 15 of Letters Patent would lie. No doubt, issue

relating to copyright, patent, design is defined as “commercial dispute”

within the meaning of Section 2(1)(xvii) of the Commercial Courts Act,

1950. Therefore, the present appeal has been filed as Original Side

Appeal (Commercial Appellate Division). Thus, it is to be examined

whether the appeal under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act is

entertainable or not.

7. The Commercial Courts Act is a special enactment and would

prevail over the Letters Patent. Chapter IV of he Commercial Courts Act

provides Appeal. Section 13 reads as follows:

13. Appeals from decrees of Commercial Courts

and Commercial Divisions.— (1) 1 [Any person

aggrieved by the judgment or order of a

Commercial Court below the level of a District

Judge may appeal to the Commercial Appellate

Court within a period of sixty days from the date of

judgment or order.

(1A) Any person aggrieved by the judgment

or order of a Commercial Court at the level of

District Judge exercising original civil jurisdiction or,

as the case may be, Commercial Division of a High

Court may appeal to the Commercial Appellate

Division of that High Court within a period of sixty

days from the date of the judgment or order:

Provided that an appeal shall lie from such orders

passed by a Commercial Division or a Commercial

Court that are specifically enum