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

Vishal Prafulsingh Solanke Vs. Controller of Patent and Designs:: 09/03/2026:Commercial Appeal (L) No. 13430 of 2025 in Commercial Miscellaneous Petition No. 110 of 2025:2026:BHC-OS:7027-DB: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 ]

=====

Controller of Patent is having trapping of civil court

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

Rashi Santosh Soni Vs Mr. Rajesh Sharma.

Delhi High Court Sets Aside Dismissal of IP Suit Passed Over Local Commissioner's Additional Site Visit

Rashi Santosh Soni Vs Mr. Rajesh Sharma:03.02.2026:RFA(COMM) 695/2025:2026:DHC:936-DB: Hon'ble Mr. Justice C. Hari Shankar and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash Shukla

Factual and Procedural Background

The appellants filed a commercial suit alleging copyright and design infringement regarding Tower Fans. The trial court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction and appointed a Local Commissioner to conduct search and seizure. The Local Commissioner visited two premises of the respondent, although the initial order directed a visit to only one premises. Consequently, the commercial court dismissed the entire suit, holding the plaintiffs' conduct fraudulent and imposing monetary penalties.

Dispute before Court

Whether a commercial suit can be dismissed under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, solely because a court-appointed Local Commissioner visited an additional premises not explicitly specified in the initial commission order.

Reasoning of Judge

The High Court observed that there is no provision in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, authorizing the dismissal of a suit due to an overreach or additional site visit by a Local Commissioner. The lower court made severe findings of fraud and collusion against the plaintiffs, their counsel, and the Local Commissioner without any supporting evidence or giving them an opportunity to show cause. The Local Commissioner acted with propriety, as she refrained from seizing goods at the unauthorized location precisely because she lacked explicit authorization. Courts must exercise circumspection before making adverse remarks against practicing counsel.

Decision

The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the commercial court's order, expunged all adverse findings and penalties, and restored the commercial suit to its original position for further proceedings.

One Important legal principle held in the case

A civil suit cannot be dismissed without statutory authorization under the Code of Civil Procedure merely because a Local Commissioner visited an additional site, and courts must not render unsubstantiated findings of collusion or fraud against counsel without giving them an opportunity to be heard.

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

# Analytical Legal Article

Introduction:

The relationship between procedural directives and substantive justice lies at the very heart of civil litigation. In intellectual property disputes, the appointment of a Local Commissioner is a routine yet critical mechanism to preserve evidence of alleged infringement before it can be altered or destroyed. However, procedural irregularities occurring during the execution of a local commission should not automatically derail the main suit unless statutory provisions explicitly dictate such a remedy. A recent judgment of the High Court of Delhi highlights the necessity for judicial restraint and adherence to procedural statutes, holding that lower courts cannot summarily dismiss a suit or penalize legal representatives over an procedural deviation by a court officer.

Factual and Procedural Background:

The dispute arose out of a commercial suit filed by the plaintiffs alleging infringement of their copyright and registered design rights in relation to Tower Fans. On 1 June 2024, the commercial court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favor of the plaintiffs and appointed a Local Commissioner to visit the premises of the defendants to effect search and seizure.

During the execution of the commission, the Local Commissioner visited two premises belonging to the defendants, whereas the specific order appointing her had explicitly authorized a visit to only one designated premises. Upon reviewing the Local Commissioner's report, the trial court took severe exception to this additional visit. On 15 November 2025, the commercial court concluded that the plaintiffs, their legal counsel, and the Local Commissioner had acted in collusion to execute an unauthorized search. Holding this act to be fraudulent and scandalous, the commercial court dismissed the suit entirely and imposed heavy monetary costs on the plaintiffs. Aggrieved by this dismissal and the adverse remarks, the plaintiffs approached the High Court of Delhi in appeal.

Dispute Before the Court

around whether a commercial suit can be summarily terminated due to an irregularity during the execution of a court commission. The primary legal issue before the appellate court was whether the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, contains any statutory provision that permits the outright dismissal of a lawsuit on the ground that a Local Commissioner visited an additional location not explicitly stated in the commission order.

The defendants contended that the plaintiffs and their legal team had manipulated the execution process by exceeding the scope of the judicial order, which amounted to fraud and abuse of the judicial process. Conversely, the plaintiffs argued that the dismissal was wholly unauthorized by law, that no opportunity of hearing was granted prior to making severe allegations of misconduct, and that the Local Commissioner had acted in good faith without exceeding actual seizure limits.

Reasoning and Analysis of the Court

In analyzing the trial court's decision, the appellate court scrutinized the statutory boundaries of civil procedure. The court noted that there exists no provision under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, that empowers a court to dismiss a substantive suit merely because a Local Commissioner visits premises outside the literal command of the commission order. When questioned, even the counsel for the defendants failed to point to any rule or statutory authority supporting such a drastic remedy.

The court observed that judicial decisions concerning frivolous litigation or suppressed facts were inappropriately applied by the trial judge to a situation involving an overextended site visit by an officer of the court. Furthermore, the court expressed serious concern over the unsubstantiated findings of collusion and misconduct made against the practicing attorneys and the Local Commissioner. Returning findings of professional misconduct or fraud without citing a shred of supporting material—and without providing a show-cause notice or an opportunity to be heard—violates basic principles of natural justice.

The court emphasized that the Bar and the Bench are equal partners in the administration of justice, requiring mutual respect and judicial circumspection. On the factual front, the court observed that the Local Commissioner had actually demonstrated propriety. Although she identified potentially infringing goods at the second location, she refrained from seizing them precisely because her written authorization did not explicitly cover that site. Consequently, the trial court's inference of fraud and collusion was completely unfounded.

Final Decision of the Court

The High Court held that the order of the commercial court could not be sustained either on facts or in law. The appellate court quashed and set aside the order dismissing the suit and expunged all adverse remarks, observations, and findings of collusion made against the plaintiffs, their legal counsel, and the Local Commissioner. The commercial suit was restored to its original position on the files of the trial court, with directions for the parties to appear before the commercial court on 25 February 2026 to proceed with the trial in accordance with law.

Point of Law Settled

This judgment re-establishes the fundamental principle that procedural deviations occurring during the execution of a local commission cannot serve as a ground for the summary dismissal of a civil suit in the absence of explicit statutory authority under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. It reaffirms that trial courts must operate strictly within statutory boundaries and cannot invent punitive measures such as suit dismissals for procedural overreaches by court-appointed commissions. The court emphasized that the Bar and the Bench are equal partners in the administration of justice. Ruling reinforces the rule that courts must exercise extreme caution and strictly follow principles of natural justice before making adverse findings or leveling allegations of collusion against practicing advocates and court-appointed commissioners.

Title of the Case: Rashi Santosh Soni & Anr. v. Mr. Rajesh Sharma & Ors.

Date of Judgment: 03.02.2026

Case Number: RFA(COMM) 695/2025

Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:936-DB

Name of Court: High Court of Delhi

Name of Hon'ble Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice C. Hari Shankar and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash Shukla

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:

Rashi Santosh Soni & Anr. v. Mr. Rajesh Sharma & Ors., RFA(COMM) 695/2025, High Court of Delhi. The appellants filed a commercial suit alleging copyright and design infringement regarding Tower Fans. The commercial court dismissed the suit and imposed costs, holding that the Local Commissioner, in collusion with plaintiffs, visited an additional unauthorized site. On appeal, the High Court held that no provision under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, permits suit dismissal due to an unauthorized visit by a Local Commissioner. The Court found no evidence of collusion, noted the lack of a show-cause opportunity, expunged all adverse remarks against counsel and the Local Commissioner, set aside the impugned order, and restored the commercial suit to its original position.

Suggested SEO Tags:

Delhi High Court, Local Commissioner, Code of Civil Procedure, Civil Suit Dismissal, Intellectual Property Law, Copyright Infringement, Design Infringement, Ex Parte Injunction, Search and Seizure, Commercial Court, Natural Justice, Opportunity of Hearing, Legal Ethics, Judicial Restraint, Adverse Remarks Expunged, Professional Misconduct, Procedural Law, Civil Procedure Code 1908, Commercial Suits Act, Tower Fan Infringement, High Court Appeal, Trial Court Overreach, Legal Practice Delhi, IP Litigation India, Advocate Case Law, AdvocateAjayAmitabhSuman, IPAdjutor

Suggested SEO Titles:

 1. Delhi High Court Restores IP Suit Dismissed Over Local Commissioner Site Visit

 2. CPC Does Not Allow Suit Dismissal for Local Commissioner Overreach: Delhi HC

 3. Delhi High Court Expunges Unsubstantiated Collusion Findings Against Advocates

 4. Can a Civil Suit Be Dismissed if a Local Commissioner Visits the Wrong Site?

 5. Delhi HC Rebukes Commercial Court for Arbitrary Suit Dismissal and Costs

 6. Scope of Local Commissioner Powers in Intellectual Property Infringement Suits

 7. Natural Justice Mandatory Before Making Adverse Remarks Against Lawyers: Delhi HC

 8. High Court Sets Aside Trial Court Order Dismissing Copyright & Design Suit

 9. Procedural Irregularities vs Substantive Justice: Delhi High Court Ruling

 10. Delhi HC Clarifies Limits of Judicial Powers in Dismissing Commercial Suits