TMI Blog2015 (7) TMI 1184X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly, the Order of the IPAB dated 24.2.2014 would also have to go. We are of course conscious of the fact that this once again sets the clock back, but there is no other option in the given circumstances. Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts, we expect the Second Respondent to dispose of the Opposition Application within a period of two months from the receipt of a copy of this Order, based on the records already available and the submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties. - W.P. No. 3851 of 2015 - - - Dated:- 2-7-2015 - Sanjay Kishan Kaul And T. S. Sivagnanam, JJ. JUDGEMENT Sanjay Kishan Kaul, CJ. 1. The Writ Petitioner seeks to impugn the Order of the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) dated 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cases within a month, in 52 cases within six months and in 13 cases within nine months. Thus, fortunately, the larger picture on this aspect is not alarming and it is only in 13 cases where there is an element of some delay. The Affidavit also affirms that there are no large number of cases awaiting Judgment and an endeavour has been made to clear the pendency of about 24000 cases, the figure pre 2013. More than about half of these cases of that vintage have been disposed of and endeavour has also been made to dispose of all the remaining cases. 3. We may notice that the Honourable Supreme Court has emphasized the importance of pronouncement of judgments in time, making observations in Anil Rai v. State of Bihar, : 2001 (7) SCC 318. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reserved are not pronounced within the period of that month. (iii) On noticing that after conclusion of the arguments the Judgment is not pronounced within a period of two months, the Chief Justice concerned shall draw the attention of the Bench concerned to the pending matter. The Chief Justice may also see the desirability of circulating the statement of such cases in which the Judgments have not been pronounced within a period of six weeks from the date of conclusion of the arguments amongst the Judges of the High Court for their information. Such communication be conveyed as confidential and in a sealed cover. (iv) Where a Judgment is not pronounced within three months, from the date of reserving it, any of the parties in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the person who reserved the Order pronounced it However, the fact remains that this came after six years, and there is no explanation available on record for this inordinate delay. Suffice to say that neither memory nor records can fully appreciate the controversy subject matter of the arguments which took place six years ago. 5. We may notice that the learned Counsel for the Third Respondent wanted to file Counter -Affidavit on merits, but we put to him that we are not really examining the controversy on merits and our setting aside the Order of the Second Respondent is solely on account of the inordinate delay in pronouncing the Judgment, without commenting on the merits of the controversy. 6. We have, thus, no option but to se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
