Last week, I had written a post
on appeals
from the decision of the IPAB. I had taken the view that apart from
invoking the writ powers of the High Court under Article 226/227, there is no
provision for an appeal from a decision of the IPAB.
The significance of an appeal is that it is a matter of right i.e. unlike a
Special leave Petition before the Supreme Court or a Writ Petition before High
Courts, an appeal gives an aggrieved party the right to knock an appellate
forum for re-appreciation of the merits of the case.
I had asked a student of NLU
Jodhpur, Ms.Savni Dutt, to review other niche legislations, specifically
Telecom Regulatory Authority Act, 1997 and the Competition Act, 2002. Savni
looked in to the Income Tax Act of her own accord. Savni confirmed what I had
in mind.
Akin to Section 117F of the
Patents Act, under Section 14N of the TRAI Act, all appeals which were pending
before High Courts were transferred to the Telecom
Dispute Settlement Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT). Further, Section 18 of the TRAI
Act provides for an appeal to the Supreme Court from the decision of TDSAT.
There is no provision of appeal to the High Court (although the Writ Power of
High Courts remains, which goes without saying).
Similarly,
under Section 53T of the Competition Act, an appeal lies to the Supreme Court
from the decision of the Competition Appellate Tribunal (CAT). However, again
there is no provision of appeal to the High Court.
Again,
under the Income Tax Act, an individual aggrieved by the order of the Income
Tax Appellate Tribunal may appeal under Section 260A of the Act only if it
raises a substantial question of law. Here too, this power has been expressly
vested in the High Court by the IT Act.
Similar
provisions exist under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962, Section 35 of the
FEMA Act and Section 18B of the SARFAESI Act.
It
is to be noted that there are no such provisions of appeal either to the High
Court or to the Supreme Court under the Patents Act from a decision of the
IPAB. An appeal is a statutory right and since there exists none from the
decision of the IPAB, it cannot be assumed to exist.
Also,
a High Court typically is an appellate forum; very few High Courts have been
vested with original civil jurisdiction since exercise of original civil
jurisdiction is not the norm for High Courts; it is an exception that has been expressly provided for. Therefore, it may not be right to assume that the IPAB
has stepped into the shoes of a Single Judge of the High Court, and therefore,
an appeal lies from the IPAB to the Division Bench of the High Court.
Simply
put, the IPAB has replaced the High Court itself as an appellate forum, and not
just Single Judges of the High Court. Consequently, an appeal may not lie from
the IPAB to the Division Bench for two reasons:
1.
An appeal provision is not provided for in the Patents Act; and
2.
the IPAB has replaced the High Court as the forum with original and final
jurisdiction over appeals from decisions of the Controller of the Patent
Office.
To
summarize, I do not think appeals lie either to a Single Judge of a High Court
or to the Division Bench from a decision of the IPAB. The only way to knock the
doors of the High Court is to file a writ under Articles 226/227.
Comments
and Corrections are welcome!
LPA No.588/2011
ReplyDeleteChampagne Moet & Chandon
versus
Union of India & Ors.
16. It is worth noting, while exercising the power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India it cannot be converted into an appeal. The judicial review is directed not against the decision but is
confined to the examination of the decision making process. If the reasons ascribed by the authorities or the IPAB are manifestly
unreasonable that no reasonable authority entrusted with the power in question would reasonably made such a decision, the concept of
judicial review gets attracted. If there is perversity of approach,interference is warranted. If there is non-examination of relevant factors and conclusion has been arrived at, it comes within the scope of judicial review. If a plausible view has been expressed on the basis of the material on record and there is no perversity of approach and the application of law to the facts is not incorrect, the concept of judicial review is not attracted. To put it in a different way, we do not perceive any error in the decision making process.
I agree. Exactly what happens in other writs as well.Thanks for the citation Anon!
DeleteBest Regards,
Sai.