CIPLA LTD. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: [2012] 11 S.C.R. 102 · Decided: 27-11-2012 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, DIPAK MISRA · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2012) 11 S.C.R. 102 
CIPLA LTD. 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal Nos. 8479-8480 of 2012) 
NOVEMBER 27, 2012 
[K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND DIPAK MISRA, JJ.] 
Natural Justice - Application for revocation of patent -
Patent revoked by Controller - By placing reliance on the 
C recommendation of the Opposition Board, but without giving 
copy of the report of the Opposition Board to either of the 
parties - Held: The order of the Controller is vitiated for 
violation of principles of natural justice - Therefore, order of 
Controller set aside - Recommendations of Opposition Board 
o now available with the parties - Direction to Controller to 
dispose of the matter afresh after hearing all the parties and 
also affording them opportunity to raise contentions for and 
against the recom High mendation of the Opposition Board 
- Patents Act, 1970 - s. 25(2). 
E 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 
8479-8480 of 2012. 
From the Judgment & Order dated 8.10.2012 and 
12.10.2012 of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ 
F 
Petition (C) No. 6361 of 2012 and in LP.A. No. 695 of 2012 
respectively. 
Harish Salve, T.R. Andhyarujina, Pratibha M. Singh, Saya 
Chowdhry, Bitika Sharma, Surbhi Mehta, Varun Tikmani, 
Gaurav Sharma, Pravin Anand, Hari Shankar K., Archana 
G Shanker, Aditya Gu'pta, Vikas Singh Jangra, Aditya Verma, C. 
Mukund, P.V. Saravana Raja, Ekta Bhasin, Gagan Gupta for 
the Appearing Parties. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered 
H 
102 
CIPLA LTD. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 
103 
ORDER 
A 
1. Leave granted. 
2. Sugen Inc. USA and Pharmacia and Upjohn Company 
USA filed an application on 9.8.2002 for the grant of patent. 
The application was recommended for grant of patent on 
B 
23.8.2007 and was finally alloted the patent No.209251, which 
was published in the Patent Office Journal under Section 43(2) 
of the Patents Act, 1970 (for short. "the Act"). Cipla Ltd. filed 
an application under section 25(2) of the Act on 1.9.2008 for 
revocation of the said patent, before the Assistant Controller 
C 
of Patent and Design (in short, "the Controller"), who vide his 
order dated 24th September, 2012 revoked the patent which 
gave rise to this litigation. 
3. Heard Mr. Harish Salve, learned senior counsel 0 
appearing for the appellant and Mr. T.R. Andhyarujina, learned 
senior counsel appearing for Respondent Nos.2 and 3 at length. 
Detaiied arguments were addressed with regard to the 
correctness or otherwise of the order passed by the Controller 
as well as by the High Court and the consequences thereof. 
E 
4. We find it unneet::ssary to examine all those contentions 
since we are sending this matter back to the Controller for fresh 
consideration in accordance with law. The main controversy 
raised in the case is on the non-furnishing of the copy of the 
recommendation of the Statutory Board constituted under 
F 
Section 25(4) of the Act to the parties. 
5. Chapter V of the Patents Act, 1970 (for short; "the Act") 
deals with the Opposition Proceedings to grant of patents. 
Section 25(1) of the Act enables any person to represent by 
G 
way of Opposition to the Controller against the grant of patent, 
but before a patent has not been granted. Sub-section (2) of 
Section 25 enables any person interested to give notice of 
opposition to the Controller at any time after the grant of patent, 
hut before the expiry of period of one year from the date of 
H 
104 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2012] 11 S.C.R. 
A publication of grant of the patent. Clauses (a) to (k) of this sub-
section are the grounds which can be taken by any person. It 
is specifically made clear that in sub-sections ( 1) and (2) of 
Section 25 of the Act that no other grounds are available to be 
taken by any person. 
B 
6. Section 25(3)(b) of the Act deals with the constitution 
of the Opposition Board for examination and submission of its 
recommendations to the Controller. Clause (c) of Section 25(3) 
says that every Opposition Board constituted under clause (b) 
shall conduct examination in accordance with such procedure 
C as may be prescribed. Chapter VI of the Patent Rules, 2003 
(for short, "the Rules") deals with the Opposition proceedings 
to grant of patents. Rule 56 deals with the constitution of 
Opposition Board and its proceeding. Rule 56 is given below 
for easy reference: 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
"56. Constitution of Opposition Board and its proceeding-
(1) On receipt of notice of opposition under rule 55A, the 
Con

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.