Madras High Court
University Health Network vs Adiuvo Diagnostics Private Limited on 3 January, 2024
Bench: Sanjay V.Gangapurwala, D.Bharatha Chakravarthy
Writ Appeal No.3076 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 03.01.2024
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.SANJAY V.GANGAPURWALA, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
Writ Appeal No.3076 of 2023
University Health Network
Suite 150, 101, College Street,
Toronto, Ontario, M5G 1L7,
Canada.
Rep. by its constituted Attorney
Nripendra Kashyap ... Appellant/4th respondent
Versus
1. Adiuvo Diagnostics Private Limited,
Represented by its authorized signatory
Ms.Geethanjali Radhakrishnan. ... 1st respondent / Writ Petitioner
2. Union of India
Representation by its Secretary,
Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue,
New Delhi & Others.
3. Office of Controller General of
Patents, Designs & Trade Marks,
Boudhik Sampada Bhawan, S.M.Road,
Antop Hill, Mumbai - 400 037.
Page 1 of 25
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Writ Appeal No.3076 of 2023
4. Office of the Deputy Controller of Patents
& Designs, Patent Office,
Intellectual Property Office Building,
Guindy, Chennai - 600 032. ... Respondents 2 to 4 / Respondents 1 to
3
Prayer : Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside the
order of the learned Single Judge, dated 27.09.2023 passed in
W.M.P.(IPD).No.7 of 2023 in W.P.(IPD).No.23 of 2023.
For Appellant : Mr.Satish Parasaran, Senior Counsel
for Mr.K.Premchandar
For Respondents : Mrs.Vindhya S.Mani
Ms.Krithika Jaganathan for R1
JUDGMENT
(Judgment made by the Hon'ble Mr.Justice D.Bharatha Chakravarthy)
This Writ Appeal is directed against an interim order of the learned
Single Judge in W.M.P.(IPD).No.7 of 2023 in W.P.(IPD).No.23 of 2023, dated
27.09.2023. By the said order, while extending the interim order and posting
the miscellaneous applications for stay and vacating the stay for further hearing
on 17.10.2023, the learned Single Judge rejected the preliminary objection as to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
place of suing. In this judgment, the parties are described as per their array in
the Writ Petition.
2. The writ petitioner is a company based in Chennai and claims to
be into creating platform technologies in the field of Opto-Electronics, with an
objective of providing efficient assistance in early disease detection that is
customised for low resource settings. It has Patent in respect of its technology
in Patent IN323440.
3. The fourth respondent filed an application in Indian Patent
Application No.9067/DELNP/2010 claiming patent in respect of a device and
method for fluorescence based imaging and monitoring at the Patent Office at
Delhi. Stating that the grant of patent in the subject application prejudices the
rights of the petitioner and also many other small and medium enterprises and
start ups working in the field of fluorescence based bio-imaging to provide
handy and cost-effective imaging solutions to monitor wounds and injuries for
better diagnostics, the writ petitioner filed a pre-grant opposition on
03.01.2021, pleading lack of novelty, lack of inventive step, non-patentable
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
subject matter and insufficient disclosure. The application is also filed at the
office of the Controller of Patents, New Dehli.
4. Prior to the same, the application filed by the fourth respondent
was allotted to one Ms.Mahalakshmi Balasubramaniam, Controller of Patents,
for examination and she made an examination report and forwarded to the
fourth respondent by communication dated 29.05.2018. It seems that
thereafter, when the opposition as aforesaid was filed, the matter was again
assigned to her. The said Controller is based at the Office of the Patent
Controller, Chennai. She therefore conducted the enquiry from Chennai,
including physical hearings in Chennai on various dates.
5. Finally, by an order dated 19.07.2023, the pre-grant opposition
was dismissed and consequentially, the patent was also granted in favour of the
fourth respondent vide Patent No.439474.
6. Aggrieved thereby, the present Writ Petition is filed for a
Certiorarified Mandamus, challenging the orders dismissing the opposition as
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
well as grant of Patent and with a consequential prayer to remand the matter
for hearing the pre-grant opposition application afresh. The challenge inter-
alia is on the ground that the expert evidence in the form of affidavits and the
written submissions made in detail are totally not considered and the impugned
order is silent about the same and therefore, it is in violation of principles of
natural justice and there is non-application of mind.
7. On 30.08.2023, the learned Single Judge considered the case of
the writ petitioner and prima facie found non-consideration of materials placed
and that since the petitioner and the fourth respondent were competitors in the
market, granted an ad-interim order restraining the fourth respondent from
prosecuting the petitioner on the basis of Patent No.439474, provided that the
petitioner uses devices and methods for fluorescence based imaging and
monitoring, based on its patent.
8. On 05.09.2023, the fourth respondent filed W.M.P.(IPD).No. 7 of
2023 for vacating the interim order. While contesting the matter on merits,
certain preliminary objections were raised by the fourth respondent. Of which,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
foremost, an objection is raised on the place of suing. It is the case of the
fourth respondent that the present patent application is of Delhi jurisdiction and
the opposition was filed only at Delhi and even the grant of patent is by Delhi
Office and the certified copy was also applied therefrom. Even if the hearings
take place in different offices, by virtue of Rule 4(2) of the Patent Rules, the
hearing is deemed to have taken place at Delhi as it is the ‘appropriate patent
office’. Rule 28, is location neutral and administrative exigencies would not
change the appropriate office of the patent application and thus, the entire
cause of action is deemed to have arisen only in Delhi, the Writ Petition before
this Court is without territorial jurisdiction. Secondly, the Delhi High Court
would only be the convenient forum and the action of the writ petitioner
amounts to forum shopping.
9. By the order dated 27.09.2023, the learned Single Judge held that
the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is
not dependent upon where the ‘appropriate patent office’ is situate and
therefore, Rule 4 of the Patent Rules is not dispositive of the jurisdiction. The
learned Judge found that upon allotment, the Officer undertook all the material
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
tasks in respect of the patent such as Patent Examination Report, issue of
hearing notices, physical hearing and the issue of impugned order rejecting the
opposition only in Chennai and therefore, it cannot be said that no part of cause
of action arose in Chennai. The learned Single Judge found that as per the
principles enunciated in the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in
Kusum Ingots and Alloys Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Anr. 1 and the
judgment of this Court in Sanjos Jewellers and Others Vs. Syndicate Bank
and Ors.2, this Court has territorial jurisdiction. The learned Single Judge
further found that since the office of the writ petitioner and offices of both sides
patent counsel / agents are also in Chennai and since the critical events relating
to the prosecution and adjudication of the grant of patent took place at
Chennai, held that this court is a convenient forum for the parties and rejected
the contentions of the fourth respondent and posted the matter for further
arguments on the other issues raised by the fourth respondent. Aggrieved
thereby, the present Writ Appeal is filed by the fourth respondent.
10. We have heard Mr.Satish Parasaran, the learned Senior Counsel
1 (2004) 6 SCC 254
2 (2007) 4 LW 473 (FB)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
appearing on behalf of the appellant / fourth respondent and Mrs.Vindhya
S.Mani, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent / writ
petitioner.
11. Mr.Satish Parasaran, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on
behalf of the fourth respondent would submit that the impugned order of grant
of patent as well as rejection of pre-grant opposition is made only by the Delhi
Patent Office. The third respondent in the Writ Petition, namely, the Controller
in Chennai, cannot be called upon to produce the records. If the prayer in the
Writ Petition is allowed, even then the patent application and opposition
application will be pending only in Delhi. He would point out to the Serial
Number of the Application, First Examination Report, Reply to First
Examination Report and all the communications and submit that all emanated
from and addressed to the Patent Office at Delhi. The Pre-Grant Opposition is
filed by the writ petitioner only in Delhi. Reply Statement is filed only in Delhi.
The multiple requests and forms were filed only in Delhi and the power agents
of both sides were also only in Delhi.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
12. The learned Senior Counsel would submit that Post-grant
publication is made in Delhi and all the records in respect of the application are
maintained only in Delhi. Under the Scheme of the Patent Act and Rules,
‘appropriate patent office’ assumes significance. The appropriate office as per
Rule 4 of the Patent Rules is only Delhi office. The allotment is made by an
automated system and as per Rule 28(6) of the Patent Rules, the hearing is
deemed to have taken place only in Delhi.
13. Mr.Satish Parasaran, learned Senior Counsel relied upon the
judgment of the Delhi High Court in Dr.Reddy’s Laboratories Vs. The
Controller of Patents3, more specifically, referring to paragraph Nos.71, 72, 89
to 93 to contend that no part of cause of action arose at Chennai. For the
proposition that mere shifting of hearing to the Patent Office, Chennai, will not
give a cause of action, he relied upon the judgment of this Court in Bharat
Bhogilal Patel Vs. Union of India and Ors.4. He would place further reliance
on Filo Edtech Inc Vs. Union of India and Anr.5, more specifically to
paragraph Nos.30 and 51 to 53 to contend that mere hearing at Chennai alone
3 2022/DHC/004746
4 (2014) 5 LW 289 (DB)
5 2023 : DHC : 8424
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
will not confer jurisdiction.
14. The learned Senior Counsel would place reliance on paragraph
No.17 of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Union of
India Vs. Adani Exports 6 to contend that if only the relevant facts pleaded
constitute the cause of action, the same can be considered. He would further
place reliance on the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Asianet Star
Communications Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Competition Commission of India and Ors.
(W.P.No.3755 of 2022) to which one of us (The Hon’ble The Chief Justice) is
a party, to contend that the writ petitioner cannot plead that cause of action for
infringement of rights is everywhere and maintain a Writ Petition.
15. He would further submit that the learned Single Judge erred in
finding that Rule 4 of Patent Rules is not dispositive of the jurisdictional
question. When the action is based on the hearing which took place, then the
term 'appropriate office' is very relevant. He would further submit that the
finding of the learned Single Judge that the matter has been assigned at the
6 (2003) 1 SCC 576
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Controller at Chennai is factually incorrect and that it is by automation, the
matters are allotted. By further relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India in State of Goa Vs. Summit Online Trade Solutions
Pvt. Ltd.,7 he would submit that the place of business of the writ petitioner
alone cannot be the basis for filing of the Writ Petition in Chennai. He would
rely upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Kiran Singh
and Ors. Vs. Chaman Paswan and Ors.8 to contend that the defect of
jurisdiction strikes at the very authority of the Court to pass any order. The
learned Senior Counsel also touched upon the other preliminary objections
namely, non-joinder of Delhi Patent Office as a party and availability of
alternative remedy. However, considering the fact that the learned Single Judge
had ruled only on the place of suing and posted the matter for further
arguments in respect of the other issues, he would submit that decision on
those contentions does not arise at the present stage. He would finally submit
that in order to decide upon the question of forum conveniens, the facts of the
present case would ally with that of Bharat Bhogilal Patel's case (cited supra)
rather than the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Kusum
7 (2023) 7 SCC 791
8 AIR 1954 SC 340
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Ingots and Alloys Ltd.'s case (cited supra). Similarly, he would point out the
difference between the facts in Sanjose Jewellers' case (cited supra) and the
present case. In the same vein, he would submit that the case in M/s. Sterling
Agro Industries Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Ors. 9 would also not be
applicable to the facts of the case. Therefore, he would submit that this Court
should interfere and hold that this Court does not have territorial jurisdiction to
entertain the Writ Petition and that the Delhi High Court is the convenient
forum for the parties.
16. Opposing the above submissions, Ms.Vindhya S.Mani, learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner would assert this Court has
territorial jurisdiction as part cause of action arose in Chennai. This Court
cannot be termed as an inconvenient forum. She would rely upon the flow chart
filed by her as to the various steps in grant of patent and submit that the most
critical parts happened only in Chennai. On 29.05.2018, the first subjective
stage in the examination of patent application was undertaken only at the
Chennai Patent Office. Reply of the fourth respondent dated 28.02.2019 to the
9 ILD (2011) VI Delhi 729
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
First Examination Report was addressed to the Controller, who was stationed
in Chennai. On 13.07.2020, the hearing notice was issued by the Controller
and it was on the Chennai Patent Office letter head. The fourth respondent
made an adjournment request on 10.08.2020, which is addressed to the
Controller who stationed in Chennai. Again on 13.08.2020, the Controller sent
the hearing notice, which is issued from the Chennai Patent Office. The fourth
respondent again made an adjournment request dated 11.09.2020 addressing
the Controller, who is stationed at Chennai. Once again on the letter head of the
Chennai Patent Office, hearing notice was issued on 30.09.2020. On
04.11.2020, written submissions was also filed, addressed to the Controller,
who was stationed in Chennai. Thereafter, the pre-grant hearing notice was
issued by the Controller from Chennai Patent Office. Similarly further hearing
notices on 14.09.2022, 03.02.2023 were all issued by the Controller from the
Chennai Office. All these communications were clearly on the Chennai Office
Letter Head, depicting the Chennai Office address. As a matter of fact, on
04.04.2023 hearing was conducted physically at the Chennai Patent Office.
She would further submit that the geographical area in which the rights of the
parties play out would be more in Chennai, when compared to other places.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Further, when both the writ petitioner and the fourth respondent and their
attorneys and agents have office in Chennai and the matter having been filed
and entertained in Chennai, it cannot be said that the Madras High Court is an
inconvenient forum.
17. Ms.Vindhya S.Mani, learned counsel would rely upon the
following judgments. The propositions for which it is relied upon and the
paragraph Nos., are tabulated as hereunder:-
S.No. Cause Title and Citation Proposition
1. Sanjos Jewellers and 2 Others The High Court within whose jurisdiction,
Vs. Syndicate Bank and Anr. only a small part of the cause of action arises,
(2007 SCC OnLine Mad 751) can be said to have jurisdiction to entertain
the matter. However, if the forum chosen is
not a convenient one, then the High Court
may refuse to exercise its jurisdiction not
because it does not have jurisidction but
because it chooses not to exercise its
discretion.
2. Sterling Agro Industries Ltd. Even if a miniscule part of cause of action
Vs. Union of India & Ors. arises within the jurisdiction of a Court, a
(2011 SCC OnLine Del 3162) Writ petition would be maintainable before
the said Court, however this is not the
singular factor and doctrine of fourm
conveniens will have to be considered.
The concept of fourm conveniens means that
it is obligatory on the part of Court to see the
convenience of all the parties before it.
3. Riddhima Singh Through Her The Court within whose jurisdiction material
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Father Shailendra Kumar decisions pertaining to the lis or the vital
Singh Vs. Central Board of parts of the cause of action have taken place,
Secondary Education Through will be conclusive in determining the
its Chairman and Ors. (2023 territorial jurisdiction of a Court.
SCC OnLine Del 7168)
4. M/s. Shristi Udaipur Hotels Most vital parts of the cause of action must
and Resorts (P) Ltd. Vs. have arisen in a territory and having a mere
Housing and Urban registered office in another territory does not
Development Corporation confer territory jurisdiction.
Limited (2014 SCC OnLine Del
2892)
5. Vishnu Security Services Vs. With reference to a situation where the
Regional Provident Fund original authority is in one State and seat of
Commissioner (2012 SCC the appellate authority is in another, writ will
OnLIne Del 1024) be maintainable in both Courts and primacy
is to be given to the Petitioner's right to
choose. The writ would be maintainable at
both places, and only in extreme cases where
the Court finds that it is totally inconvenient
for a Court to entertain the writ petition and
the other High Court is better equipped to
deal with such a case, then the doctrine of
forum conveniens has to be applied.
While exercising discretion regarding forum
conveniens, the Court has to satisfy not only
with the fact that it is a forum non
convenience but the other forum is more
convenient and in the coparative conveniens
(or the non-conveniens) the yarstick is to see
as to which Court, out of the two, is more
suitable for the interest of the parties as well
as for the ends of justice.
6. Aasma Mohammed Farooq and The position in Vishnu Security Services Vs.
Anr. Vs. Union of India and Regional Provident Fund Commissioner
Ors. (2018 SCC OnLine Del (2012 SCC OnLine Del 1024) was
12800) approvingly relied upon.
7. Mohammed Farooq Mohd. The Hob'ble Supreme Court had upheld the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Hanif Shaikh & Anr. Vs. UOI Delhi High Court Judgment Aasma
& Ors. (SLP No. 32941/2018 Mohammed Farooq and Anr Vs. Union of
dated 14.12.2018) India and Ors. (2018 SCC OnLine Del
12800).
8. Sachin Chhotu Pawar Vs. Cause of action means the circumstances
Collector, Raigad and Ors. forming the infraction of right or the
(2020(6)Mh.L.J.) immediate occasion for the action; necessary
conditions for the maintenance of the action
including not only the infraction of the right
but also the infraction coupled with the right
itself.
9. Y.Abraham Ajith and others v. Cause of action consists of bundle of facts,
Inspector of Police, Chennai which give cause to enforce the legal inquiry
and another (2004) 8 SCC 100 for redress in a court of law. In other words,
it is a bundle of fact, which taken with the
law applicable to them, gives the allegedly
affected party a right to claim relief against
the opponent. It must include some act done
by the latter since in the absece of such an
act no cause of action would possible accrue
or would arise.
The expression "cause of action" has
sometimes been emplyed to convey the
restricted idea of facts or circumstances
which constitute either the infringement or
the basis of a right and no more. In a wider
and more comprehensive sense, it has been
used to denote the whole bundle of material
facts.
The expression "cause of action" is generally
understood to mean a situation or state of
facts that entitles a party to maintain an
action in a court or a tribunal; a group of
operative facts giving rise to one or more
bases for sitting a factual situation that
entitles one person to obtain a remedy in
court from another person.
10. Nawal Kishore Sharma v. In order to maintain a writ petition, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Union of India & Ors., (2014) Petitioner has to establish that a legal right
9 SCC 329 claimed by him has been infringed by the
respondents within the territorial limit of the
Court's jurisdiction.
11. Sardar Balbir Singh Vs. Atma A right of action is a right to presently
Ram Srivastava (1976 SCC enforce a cause of action a remedial right
OnLine All 374) affording redress for the infringement of a
legal right belonging to some definite person;
a cause of action is the operative facts which
give rise to such right of action. the right of
action does not arise until the performance of
all conditions precedent to the action, and
may be taken away by the running of the
statute of limitations through an estoppel, or
by other circumstances which do not affect
the cause of action. There may be several
right of action and one cause of action and
rights may accrue at different times from the
same cause.
12. Daya Shanker Bhardwaj Chief A right of action arises as soon as there is an
of the Air Staff, New Delhi, and invasion of right. But 'cause of action' and
others (1987 SCC OnLine All 'right of action' are not synonymous or
627) interchangeable. A right of action is the right
to enforce a cause of action.
13. Nakul Deo Singh Vs. Deputy Receipt of the order or communication only
Commadant (1999 SCC gives the party a right of action based on the
OnLine Ker 366) cause of action arising out of the action
complained of. When that action
complained of takes place outside the
territorial jurisdiction of the High Court and
an appeal therefore is dismissed by an
authority located outside the jurisdiction of
the High Court cause of action wholly arises
outside the jurisdiction of the High Court.
14. Aparna Balan & Anr. Vs. UOI A right of action arises upon infraction of
& 7 Ors. (2018 SCC OnLine right but cause of action arises can be
Ker 3019) enforced only when the invasion of right
occurs within the territorial jurisdiction of a
High Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
15. Asianet Star Communications Only because the Petitioners carry on
Pvt Ltd. Vs. Competition business in a State would not give rise to the
Commission of India & 3 Ors. cause of action for the court to exercise its
(WP. No.3755 of 2022 dated jurisdiction unless the part of cause of action
16.09.2022 Bombay High has arisen within that territory. The mere
Court) fact that the business is carried on in a
particular place, will not confer jurisdiction
unless it is shown that the place of business is
the integral part of the business.
18. We have considered the rival submissions made on either side
and perused the material records of the case.
19. The instant matter is a Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India and therefore, jurisdiction has to be decided as per Article
226 (2), which is extracted hereunder:-
“(2) The power conferred by clause (1) to issue
directions, orders or writs to any Government, authority or
person may also be exercised by any High Court exercising
jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which the cause of
action, wholly or in part, arises for the exercise of such power
notwithstanding that the seat of such Government or authority or
the residence of such person is not within those territories.”
20. Thus it can be seen that irrespective of location of the
‘appropriate patent office’, this Court would have territorial jurisdiction to
entertain the matter if part cause of action arose within its jurisdiction. As
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
stated supra, in this case, the cause of action is that the petitioner is carrying
on its business pursuant to the patent granted to it in No. IN323440 and if the
fourth respondent is granted patent on its claim, the same will affect its
business. The writ petitioner has got a patent and conducting its business in
Chennai and the same is an integral part of the reason for the writ petitioner to
oppose the grant of patent. On the contrary, the fourth respondent is based in
Canada and through its attorney is filing the application in India. Therefore, it
cannot be said that the primary geographical area where the rights of parties
play out in Delhi and that jurisdiction is artificially vested in Chennai. If the
geographical area in which the rights of parties play out is to be considered,
then Chennai stands in a better footing than Delhi.
21. Though the filing of opposition, refusal of the same and the
consequential grant of patent can normally be considered as right of action, in
this case, the Writ Petition is filed pithily contending that the the principles of
natural justice is violated when the hearing took place at Chennai, where the
expert evidence affidavits which were furnished and written submissions made
is alleged to be not considered and thus, the divisional line between cause of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
action and right of action in this case blurs out. Therefore, it cannot be
contended that no part of cause of action arose within the Jurisdiction of this
Court.
22. The contention on behalf of the fourth respondent that even if the
hearings happened in Chennai as the application and opposition is filed in
Delhi Office, the entire hearing is deemed to have happened only in Delhi as
Rule 28 (6) and Rule 4 (2) of the Patent Rules makes the Delhi Office as the
‘appropriate patent office’, cannot be countenanced as that would be for the
specific purposes mentioned in the rules, including filing of an appeal if any.
The same does not undo the part of action which happened in Chennai, which
forms part of the cause of action, for the purpose of filing of the Writ Petition.
In this regard, it is essential to reproduce the relevant passages from Kusum
Ingots (cited supra):
“25.The said decision is an authority for the
proposition that the place from where an appellate order or a
revisional order is passed may give rise to a part of cause of
action although the original order was at a place outside the
said area. When a part of the cause of action arises within one
or the other High Court, it will be for the petitioner to choose
his forum.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
26. The view taken by this Court in U.P. Rashtriya
Chini Mill Adhikari Parishad[(1995) 4 SCC 738] that the situs
of issue of an order or notification by the Government would
come within the meaning of the expression “cases arising” in
clause 14 of the (Amalgamation) Order is not a correct view of
law for the reason hereafter stated and to that extent the said
decision is overruled. In fact, a legislation, it is trite, is not
confined to a statute enacted by Parliament or the legislature
of a State, which would include delegated legislation and
subordinate legislation or an executive order made by the
Union of India, State or any other statutory authority. In a
case where the field is not covered by any statutory rule,
executive instructions issued in this behalf shall also come
within the purview thereof. Situs of office of Parliament,
legislature of a State or authorities empowered to make
subordinate legislation would not by itself constitute any cause
of action or cases arising. In other words, framing of a statute,
statutory rule or issue of an executive order or instruction
would not confer jurisdiction upon a court only because of the
situs of the office of the maker thereof.
…….
29.In view of clause (2) of Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, now if a part of cause of action arises
outside the jurisdiction of the High Court, it would have
jurisdiction to issue a writ. The decision inKhajoor Singh[AIR
1961 SC 532 : (1961) 2 SCR 828] has, thus, no application.”
(emphasis supplied)
23. That takes us to the second question as to whether on the
principles of forum conveniens this Court should exercise restraint and relegate
the parties to Delhi High Court? Firstly, we are of the view that the Madras
High Court, cannot be termed to be an inconvenient Court. If forum
conveniens is to be considered, (i) the fourth respondent is located in Canada
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
and has filed the Patent Application through its attorneys; (ii) the writ
petitioner is located in Chennai; (iii) both side learned counsel and patent
agents are having their offices also at Chennai. Therefore, we do not see any
ground to exercise restraint on the ground of forum conveniens. In our view,
the learned Single Judge has rightly relied upon the Sanjos Jewellers' case
cited supra to repel the objection as to the place of suing. When part of the
cause of action arose in Chennai and when certain critical events leading to the
examination of the patent, hearing of the opposition of the patent,
pronouncement of orders, rejecting the opposition all happened in Chennai, the
discretion exercised by the learned Single Judge in rejecting the objection as to
the place of suing cannot be termed as illegal or perverse.
24. Moreover, with the advent of technology, in the times of quick
and instant communication and virtual hearings, the very ethos relating to
forum conveniens and prejudice to the parties have all to be recaliberated.
Already counter affidavit had been filed by the fourth respondent, which
includes their contentions on merits and the application for vacating the stay
has to be heard by the learned Single Judge in the Intellectual Property
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Division.
25. In that view of the matter, we see no grounds to interfere and
accordingly, this Writ Appeal No.3076 of 2023 shall stand dismissed. No order
as to costs. Consequently, C.M.P.Nos.25442 and 25443 of 2023 are closed.
(S.V.G., CJ.) (D.B.C., J.)
03.01.2024
Index : yes
Speaking order
Neutral Citation : yes
Jer/grs
To
1. The Secretary
Union of India
Ministry of Finance,
Department of Revenue,
New Delhi & Others.
2. Office of Controller General of
Patents, Designs & Trade Marks,
Boudhik Sampada Bhawan, S.M.Road,
Antop Hill, Mumbai - 400 037.
3. Office of the Deputy Controller of Patents
& Designs, Patent Office,
Intellectual Property Office Building,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Guindy, Chennai - 600 032.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE
and
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.,
Jer/grs
03.01.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
