Vishal Prafulsingh Solanke Vs. Controller of Patent and Designs

Bombay High Court Rules No Intra-Court Commercial Appeal Lies Against Single Judge Order Passed Under Section 117A Of Patents Act

[Case Title] : Vishal Prafulsingh Solanke Vs. Controller of Patent and Designs

Date of Judgment: 09/03/2026

Case No.: Commercial Appeal (L) No. 13430 of 2025 in Commercial Miscellaneous Petition No. 110 of 2025

Neutral Citation : 2026:BHC-OS:7027-DB

[Court Name] : High Court of Judicature at Bombay

Name of Hon'ble Judge: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Bharati Dangre and Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Manjusha Deshpande

Factual and Procedural Background The appellants filed patent application number 879/MUM/2015 on 17/03/2015 for an invention titled Thread Type Tamper Evident Security Seal. A pre-grant opposition was filed by respondent number 3. On 14/06/2023, the Assistant Controller of Patent and Designs refused the patent application under Section 25(1)(b) and Section 25(1)(e) of the Patents Act, 1970. Aggrieved by this refusal, the appellants filed Commercial Miscellaneous Petition (L) No. 25369 of 2023 before a Single Judge of the High Court invoking Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970. On 27/03/2025, the Single Judge dismissed the petition and affirmed the order of the Assistant Controller. The appellants then preferred a commercial appeal under Section 13(1-A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 before the Division Bench.

Dispute before Court The primary issue before the Division Bench was whether an intra-court appeal under Section 13(1-A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 is maintainable against a judgment or order of a Single Judge of the High Court delivered while exercising appellate jurisdiction under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970, or whether such an appeal is barred under Section 100A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Reasoning of Judge The Division Bench observed that the Single Judge heard the matter in exercise of statutory appellate jurisdiction under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970, and delivered a final judgment determining the rights of the parties. Although Section 13(1-A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 allows appeals against judgments of Commercial Divisions, the Commercial Courts Act does not exclude general provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 regarding appeals. Section 100A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 creates a specific statutory bar against further intra-court appeals from a judgment or decree of a Single Judge rendered in an appeal. Furthermore, the Assistant Controller of Patents is a quasi-judicial authority equipped with powers of a civil court and has the trappings of a court. Consequently, the bar under Section 100A applies to statutory appeals originating from such quasi-judicial decisions, thereby prohibiting any second intra-court appeal.

Decision The High Court held that the commercial appeal filed under Section 13(1-A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 is not maintainable in view of the statutory prohibition contained in Section 100A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and accordingly dismissed the appeal.

One Important legal principle held in the case An intra-court appeal before a Division Bench under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 is barred by Section 100A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, when the decision of the Single Judge has been rendered in exercise of statutory appellate jurisdiction under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970.

[Disclaimer: Readers are advised not to treat this as a substitute for legal advice as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation ]

=====

Introduction: The interplay between intellectual property statutes, special commercial legislation, and general procedural law often gives rise to critical procedural questions regarding appellate remedies. Following the abolishment of the Intellectual Property Appellate Board, appeals against decisions of the Controller of Patents were routed directly to the High Courts under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970. A pivotal question that subsequently arose was whether a party dissatisfied with the decision of a Single Judge of the High Court in a patent appeal could file a second intra-court appeal before a Division Bench under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. In a significant judgment, the Bombay High Court comprehensively analyzed the statutory framework governing patent appeals, commercial dispute jurisdiction, and the general prohibition against second appeals contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Factual and Procedural Background: The dispute originated when the applicants submitted Patent Application number 879/MUM/2015 on 17/03/2015 before the Indian Patent Office seeking protection for an invention titled Thread Type Tamper Evident Security Seal. During the examination process, a pre-grant opposition was filed by a third party. Following administrative and statutory procedures, including opportunity to amend complete specifications and file written submissions, the Assistant Controller of Patent and Designs issued an order on 14/06/2023. The Assistant Controller held that the opposition succeeded under Section 25(1)(b) and Section 25(1)(e) of the Patents Act, 1970, and refused the grant of patent to the applicants.

Seeking relief against the refusal order, the applicants approached the High Court on its original side by filing Commercial Miscellaneous Petition (L) number 25369 of 2023 under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970. The petition was heard by the High Court functioning as a Commercial Division under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. After examining the record, the High Court found no merit in the challenge and dismissed the petition on 27/03/2025, thereby affirming the decision of the Assistant Controller. Aggrieved by this dismissal, the applicants filed Commercial Appeal (L) number 13430 of 2025 under Section 13(1-A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 before the Division Bench of the High Court.

Dispute Before the Court The core question that required adjudication by the Court was whether a commercial appeal under Section 13(1-A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 lies before a Division Bench against a judgment delivered by a Single Judge in a statutory appeal under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970.

The appellants argued that the Single Judge exercised original jurisdiction while entertaining the petition against the decision of the Controller, meaning the resulting judgment was an original decree appealable under Section 13(1-A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. They further contended that the prohibition under Section 100A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 applies only to appeals arising from decrees or orders passed by civil courts. Since the Controller of Patents is an administrative officer and not a civil court, the appellants asserted that Section 100A CPC was inapplicable and did not bar an intra-court appeal.

On the other hand, the respondents and amicus curiae contended that the proceeding before the Single Judge was an exercise of statutory appellate jurisdiction under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970. They submitted that the right to appeal is purely a creation of statute and the Patents Act does not provide for any second intra-court appeal. They argued that Section 100A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 imposes an absolute bar on further intra-court appeals from appellate decisions rendered by a Single Judge, and this bar extends to statutory appeals originating from quasi-judicial authorities like the Controller of Patents.

Reasoning and Analysis of the Court The Court engaged in an exhaustive analysis of the statutory framework and relevant legal principles. The Court observed that the entry of the dispute into the High Court occurred specifically through Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970, which provides an appellate forum against orders of the Controller. Consequently, the Single Judge sat as an appellate court rather than a court of first instance. The Court affirmed that while Section 13(1-A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 allows appeals against judgments of the Commercial Division, the Commercial Courts Act does not displace general procedural statutes such as the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, except to the extent specifically modified under Section 16 for the trial of commercial suits.

In examining Section 100A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the Court stressed that the overarching legislative object of introducing Section 100A was to eliminate multiple tiers of appeals and ensure early finality in legal disputes. The Court analyzed key judicial precedents of the Supreme Court, including Municipal Corporation of Brihanmumbai v. State Bank of India (1999) 1 SCC 123, Kamal Kumar Dutta v. Ruby General Hospital Ltd. (2006) 7 SCC 613, and Mohd. Saud v. Shaik Mahfooz (2010) 13 SCC 517. The Court also reviewed the Full Bench rulings of the Bombay High Court in Gangawani and Co. v. Saraswati Banewar (2001) 3 Mh.L.J. 6 and Mohd. Riyazur Rehman Siddhiqui v. Deputy Director of Health Services (2008) 6 Mh.L.J. 941, alongside the decision in MITC Rolling Private Limited v. Renuka Realtors 2025 SCC Online SC 2375.

Addressing the contention that Section 100A CPC only applies to orders of traditional civil courts, the Court held that the Controller of Patents under Section 77 of the Patents Act, 1970 is invested with significant statutory powers of a civil court, including powers to examine witnesses on oath, order discovery and production of documents, receive evidence on affidavits, and award costs executable as a civil court decree. The Court held that the Controller of Patents functions as a quasi-judicial authority possessing the trappings of a civil court. Following established precedents, the Court determined that the prohibition contained in Section 100A CPC applies with full force to statutory appeals originating from quasi-judicial authorities once they are decided by a Single Judge of the High Court.

Final Decision of the Court The High Court concluded that the Single Judge had decided the matter in exercise of appellate jurisdiction under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970. In the absence of an express provision granting a second appeal within the Patents Act, 1970, and in light of the statutory bar under Section 100A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, no intra-court commercial appeal could be entertained by the Division Bench. The High Court accordingly held that the Commercial Appeal filed under Section 13(1-A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 was not maintainable and dismissed the appeal with no order as to costs.

Point of Law Settled This judgment settles an important procedural principle regarding the jurisdiction of Commercial Appellate Divisions in patent disputes. It establishes that the right to appeal is purely statutory and cannot be inferred. Once a statutory appeal against an order of a quasi-judicial authority, such as the Controller of Patents under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970, is decided by a Single Judge of the High Court, the statutory prohibition under Section 100A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 operates to bar any further intra-court appeal before a Division Bench under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. This ruling clarifies that quasi-judicial bodies holding trappings of a court fall within the scope of Section 100A CPC for the purpose of curtailing repetitive appellate litigation.

Title of the Case: Vishal Prafulsingh Solanke and Anr. v. Controller of Patent and Designs and Ors.

Date of Judgment: 09/03/2026

Case Number: Commercial Appeal (L) No. 13430 of 2025 in Commercial Miscellaneous Petition No. 110 of 2025

Neutral Citation: 2026:BHC-OS:7027-DB

Name of Court: High Court of Judicature at Bombay (Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction)

Name of Hon'ble Judge: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Bharati Dangre and Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Manjusha Deshpande

Written By:Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi

Disclaimer: Readers are advised not to treat this as a substitute for legal advice as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation .

Headnote of the Judgment: High Court of Judicature at Bombay; Commercial Appeal (L) No. 13430 of 2025; Vishal Prafulsingh Solanke and Anr. v. Controller of Patent and Designs and Ors.; Neutral Citation: 2026:BHC-OS:7027-DB; Judgment Dated 09/03/2026. Commercial appeal filed under Section 13(1-A) of Commercial Courts Act, 2015 challenging judgment of Single Judge passed under Section 117A of Patents Act, 1970 refusing patent application. Maintainability challenged on ground of Section 100A Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Held, Controller of Patents exercises quasi-judicial powers with trappings of a civil court. Decision of Single Judge under Section 117A is rendered in statutory appellate jurisdiction. Section 100A CPC bars second intra-court appeal against appellate decision of Single Judge. Commercial appeal dismissed as not maintainable.

Suggested SEO Tags:

Patents Act 1970, Section 117A Patents Act, Section 13 Commercial Courts Act, Section 100A CPC, Intra Court Appeal Maintainability, Bombay High Court Judgment, Patent Appeals India, Controller of Patents, Patent Application Refusal, Commercial Division High Court, Commercial Appellate Division, Intellectual Property Law India, Trappings of Civil Court, Quasi Judicial Authority Patents, Patent Litigation India, Pre Grant Opposition Patent, Second Appeal Bar CPC, Letters Patent Appeal Patent, Bombay High Court Patent Ruling, Section 77 Patents Act, Commercial Dispute IP, IP Laws India, Intellectual Property Appellate Jurisdiction, Patent Refusal Appeal, AdvocateAjayAmitabhSuman, IPAdjutor

Suggested SEO Titles:

1. Maintainability Of Intra Court Appeal Under Section 13 Commercial Courts Act Against Section 117A Patent Judgment

2. Bombay High Court Rules No Second Appeal Lies Against Single Judge Order Under Patents Act 1970

3. Bar Of Section 100A CPC On Patent Appeals Explained By Bombay High Court

4. Is Intra Court Commercial Appeal Maintainable Against Patent Appeal Orders? Bombay High Court Answers

5. Controller Of Patents As Quasi Judicial Authority: Section 100A CPC Bar Applies To Patent Appeals

6. Scope Of Section 13 Commercial Courts Act In Patent Dispute Appeals

7. Bombay High Court Decision On Maintainability Of Commercial Appeals In Patent Cases

8. Interplay Between Section 117A Patents Act And Section 100A Code Of Civil Procedure

9. No Letters Patent Or Intra Court Appeal From Single Judge Orders Under Patents Act

10. Legal Analysis Of Bombay High Court Ruling In Vishal Prafulsingh Solanke v Controller Of Patents