POLYDRUG LABORATROIES P.LTD. Vs CONTROLLER OF PATENTS .
Bench: DALVEER BHANDARI,GYAN SUDHA MISRA, , ,
Case number: C.A. No.-007326-007326 / 2011
Diary number: 10424 / 2011
Advocates: Vs
CHANCHAL KUMAR GANGULI
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)