TMI Blog2014 (10) TMI 1059X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... He had also filed a writ petition in the Bombay High Court, which he subsequently withdrew on account of other reasons. The petitioner was desirous of an early adjudication on the issue of the applications filed for revocation of patents. The parties thus joined together to have the matter heard at Chennai, which was the Principal Seat of the IPAB, on account of time being at the disposal of the IPAB. It is in this context that the hearing was held by the IPAB at Chennai and the final order was passed at Chennai and not at Mumbai. In our view, this was an arrangement only for convenience of hearing - Merely because both the parties having agreed to get the matter heard early, made arrangements through their counsel to attend the hearings at Chennai being the Principal Seat of the IPAB, would not make a difference and it is a fit case where the principle of forum conveniens should be invoked and the parties be put to adjudication before the High Court of Bombay, rather than this Court. The present factual matrix is not even where it is the situs of the appellate authority in question. The Bench of the appellate authority was actually located at Mumbai and thus, only for conve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ht into force on 20.5.2003 in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 159 of the Patents Act. Rule 4 specifies the appropriate office to be the head office of the patent office or the branch office, as the case may be, within whose territorial limits the applicant normally resides or has his domicile or a place of business or the place from where the invention actually originated. It is the say of the first respondent that as per the Official Journal of the Patent Office, it is the Patent Office at Mumbai which is the appropriate office in respect of the States of Gujarat and Maharashtra. Consequently, the aforesaid two patent applications were filed by the first respondent at the Mumbai office of the Controller of Patents, since the first respondent was residing at Mumbai. The patents were so granted and the entry relating to the same was made in the Register of Patents maintained at Mumbai under Rule 88 of the Patent Rules. 3. The petitioner, inter alia, filed applications before the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad seeking revocation of the two Patent Nos.188787 and 189027 granted in favour of the first respondent. The first respondent apparently instituted a crimi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e on 12.3.2012 and the orders were passed by the IPAB on 12.6.2012. The mention of the IPAB, Bombay in the impugned order is stated to be a mistake as the applications were listed and published in the cause list at Chennai. It is in view thereof that this Court is stated to have the jurisdiction to entertain the writ petitions under Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India as the hearing took place on 19.3.2012 at Chennai, the order dated 12.6.2012 was pronounced at Chennai, the principal seat of IPAB is at Chennai and thus, part of the cause of action has arisen at Chennai. 7. To buttress the respective submissions, learned counsel for both the parties referred to a catena of judgments, which we discuss hereinafter. I. Cases cited by the petitioner (i) Kusum Ingots Alloys Ltd. vs. Union of India, A.I.R. 2004 S.C. 2321 Learned counsel for the petitioner drew our attention to paragraph 30 of this judgment dealing with the principle of forum conveniens, where it is observed that even if a small part of cause of action arises within the territorial jurisdiction of this High Court, the same by itself may not be considered to be determinative factor compelling t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ition would not be maintainable under Article 226(1) of the Constitution of India in the Madras High Court. The entire transaction having taken place at Hyderabad, merely because the order impugned had been passed by the Appellate Tribunal situated at Chennai, the same by itself may not be considered to be a determinative factor relating to the part of cause of action, compelling the High Court to decide the matter on merits and Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India would not apply. The learned single Judge opined that the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226(1) of the Constitution of India depends upon the seat of the authority, and in view of the fact that one DRAT is constituted for several DRTs within several States and for convenience the seat of DRAT is located at Chennai, the seat of the DRAT should be deemed to be within the State concerned, i.e. the jurisdiction would be at Hyderabad. (iii) Matrix Laboratories Limited, Secunderabad vs. F. Hoffman La Roche Ltd., Basel, Switzerland, (2012) 2 M.L.J. 221 (MHC) The mere filing of a revocation petition before the IPAB, Chennai was held not to give rise to a cause of action to file a suit for infringe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... grievance, approach the Delhi High Court for appropriate relief. This view was taken despite noticing that a part of the cause of action may have arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court due to the order passed by the IPAB, Chennai. II. Cases cited by the first respondent (i) U.P. Rashtriya Chini Mill Adhikari Parishad vs. State of U.P., (1995) 4 S.C.C. 738 The reference to the aforesaid judgment was made in the context of the interpretation given in the earlier judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court still holding good even after incorporation of the explanation to Section 141 CPC, i.e. Nasiruddin vs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, (1975) 2 S.C.C. 671. It was held that the expression cause of action in an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would encompass an appellate order or a revisional order passed within the jurisdiction of that Court, though the order may have been passed at a place outside the area. Thus, it would be open to the litigant who is the dominant litis to have his forum conveniens as the litigant has the right to go to a Court where a part of his cause of action arises. (ii) Sanjos Jewellers vs. Syndicate Bank ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nal authority, a part of cause of action arises at that place. When the original authority is situated at one place and the appellate authority is situated at another, a writ petition would be maintainable at both places. However, the concept of forum conveniens could come into play. While setting aside the earlier view, it was concluded that mala fide manner of invoking jurisdiction would be too narrow a compass as the exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution is discretionary. III. Stand of the Union of India Canon Steels Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs, 2008 (1) C.T.C. 92 (SC) In the context of Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India, while dealing with an appeal under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962, where an adjudication order was passed by the Commissioner of Mumbai and the appellate order was passed by the CESTAT, New Delhi, it was held that the Delhi High Court would have jurisdiction to deal with the matter. If a small part of the cause of action arises within the territorial jurisdiction, the same by itself may not be considered to be determinative factor compelling the High Court to decide the matter on merits, and the High C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... also filed a writ petition in the Bombay High Court, which he subsequently withdrew on account of other reasons. 10. In view of the constitution of the IPAB in the year 2007, the Gujarat High Court itself transferred the issue of revocation of patents to the IPAB Circuit Bench at Mumbai, where the proceedings commenced. In these circumstances any further cause would undoubtedly have given rise to proceedings only in the Bombay High Court. 11. Yet another development which needs to be taken note of is that while the Principal Seat of IPAB was at Chennai, it held Circuit Bench sittings at different locations. It appears that the number of cases were too many at Mumbai, whereas the frequency of sittings was comparatively less. The result was that proceedings would take longer time to reach a culmination. 12. The petitioner was desirous of an early adjudication on the issue of the applications filed for revocation of patents. The parties thus joined together to have the matter heard at Chennai, which was the Principal Seat of the IPAB, on account of time being at the disposal of the IPAB. It is in this context that the hearing was held by the IPAB at Chennai and the final orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rine of forum conveniens. The mere fact that hearing was held at Chennai rather than at Mumbai on account of a given inadequacy of sittings at Mumbai by the IPAB Circuit Bench at Mumbai, thus would not imply that this Court should necessarily exercise the jurisdiction. 17. The observations thus made in Dr. Nandu Dwarakasingh s case (supra) become material in the facts of the present case. We are thus inclined to allow the application filed by the petitioner (original fourth respondent in the writ petitions) and non-suit the first respondent (original writ petitioner), applying the principles of forum conveniens, with leave to the first respondent to file the proceedings before the competent court at Mumbai. If one may say, the situation is akin to a scenario where though the seat of arbitration may be in one place, for convenience, some hearings are held at another location. 18. The application, viz. M.P. No.3 of 2012 is accordingly allowed. In view of the orders passed in the miscellaneous petition, the writ petitions are dismissed, with liberty to the writ petitioner to initiate legal proceedings at Mumbai, if so advised. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Conseq ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
