1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION  

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7326     OF 2011

(Arising out of SLP(C) No.9397/2011)

POLYDRUG LABORATROIES P. LTD.              Appellant(s)

                    :VERSUS:

CONTROLLER OF PATENTS & ORS.               Respondent(s)

O R D E R

1. Leave granted.

2. We  have  heard  the  learned  counsel  for  the  

parties.

3. Learned counsel  for the  appellant has  drawn  

our attention to Rule 138 of the Patent Rules, 2003,  

which reads as under:

“138. Power to extend time prescribed.-  

(1) Save as otherwise provided in the rules  

24B, sub-rule (4) of rule 55 and sub-rule  

(1A) of rule 80, the time prescribed by  

these rules for doing of any act or the  

taking of any proceeding thereunder may be  

extended by the Controller for a period of  

one month, if he thinks it fit to do so and  

upon such terms as he may direct.

2

(2) Any request for extension of time made  

under these rules shall be made before the  

expiry of prescribed period.”   

4. According to a plain reading of Rule 138, it  

is clear that the Controller may extend the time for  

filing evidence for a period of one month.  Learned  

counsel for the appellant submits that the Assistant  

Controller of Patents and Designs has not considered  

the said Rule 138 of the Patent Rules, 2003 in its  

proper perspective. He further submits that he has  

filed the evidence but the same has not been taken  

on  record.   We  are  of  the  considered  view  that  

according to Rule 138, the Controller has the power  

to extend the time for a period of one month.  

5. Mr.  Grover,  learned  counsel  appearing  on  

behalf of respondent No.4 submits that the evidence,  

which has already been filed, may be taken on record  

subject to the objections available to him under the  

rules.     

6. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we

3

deem it appropriate to set aside impugned judgment  

and remit the matter to the Assistant Controller for  

adjudication  afresh  in  accordance  with  law.  The  

appeal is accordingly disposed of.   

.....................J (DALVEER BHANDARI)

.....................J (GYAN SUDHA MISRA)

New Delhi; August 16, 2011.

4

ITEM NO.12               COURT NO.4             SECTION IX

           S U P R E M E   C O U R T   O F   I N D I A                          RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS  

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).9397/2011

(From the judgement and order dated 28/02/2011 in WP No.2029/2010  of the HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY)

POLYDRUG LABORATROIES P.LTD.                      Petitioner(s)

                VERSUS

CONTROLLER OF PATENTS & ORS.                      Respondent(s)

(With prayer for interim relief)

Date: 16/08/2011  This Petition was called on for hearing today.

CORAM :         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DALVEER BHANDARI         HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE GYAN SUDHA MISRA

For Petitioner(s) Mr. Saikrishna Rajagopal,Adv.                   Mr. Hari Shankar K,Adv.

Ms. Ushal Chandrasekharan,Adv. Mr. Vikas Singh Jangra,Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. Anand Grover,Adv. Mr. K.S. Prasad,Adv. Mr. Chanchal Kumar Ganguli,Adv.

          UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following                                O R D E R  

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.  

The impugned judgment is set aside, the matter is  

remitted  to  the  Assistant  Controller  for  adjudication  

afresh in accordance with law and the appeal is disposed  

of in terms of the signed order.  

(A.S. BISHT)              (NEERU BALA VIJ)  COURT MASTER                       ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

(Signed order is placed on the file)