Kolkata, Nov. 6 -- The Calcutta High Court has held that an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal under the Trade Marks Act, 1999 cannot be challenged again before another Bench through an intra-court (Letters Patent) appeal.
The ruling was delivered by a Division Bench comprising Justice Arijit Banerjee and Justice Om Narayan Rai, which dismissed an appeal questioning a Single Judge's decision. The Bench held that such an intra-court appeal is not maintainable, as the order arises from a statutory appeal under Section 91 of the Trade Marks Act and not from the High Court's original jurisdiction.
The matter originated from a challenge to an order of the Registrar of Trade Marks that had been appealed before a Single Judge of the High Court under Section 91. When the Single Judge decided that appeal, the aggrieved party sought to move a further intra-court appeal before the Division Bench, arguing that a Letters Patent appeal was maintainable.
The Bench examined the statutory framework and concluded that since the Act provides for only one appeal to the High Court and no clause allows another, the intra-court appeal could not be entertained.
Examining the scheme of the Act, the court noted that Section 91 provides a specific right of appeal to the High Court against orders of the Registrar of Trade Marks but contains no clause allowing a further appeal.
The judges pointed out that the earlier Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 had expressly permitted a second appeal, which was deliberately omitted in the 1999 statute. This, they said, indicates the legislature's clear intent to confine the appellate process to a single stage.
The court discussed the powers of the Registrar of Trade Marks, observing that the Registrar may receive evidence, administer oaths, enforce attendance of witnesses, compel production of documents, review decisions, and award costs enforceable as a decree of a civil court.
These powers, the Bench said, give the Registrar the trappings of a civil court and show that proceedings before the Registrar are quasi-judicial in nature.
Relying on Supreme Court precedents interpreting Section 100A of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), the Bench held that the bar on further appeals applies equally to appellate orders of a Single Judge in statutory proceedings. It reiterated that the right of appeal is a creation of statute and cannot be presumed where the law is silent.
Accordingly, the Division Bench dismissed the appeal as not maintainable, made no order as to costs, and directed that certified copies of the judgment be issued upon compliance with formalities.
Published by HT Digital Content Services with permission from Millennium Post.