Writ Petitions Against Orders Passed By IPAB Must Be Decided By Single Judge: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has ruled that the writ petitions challenging the orders passed by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) before its abolition in 2021 would have to be heard and decided by a single judge and not a division bench.

Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021 abolished various Tribunals including India's Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) and assigned their functions to the country's Commercial Courts and High Courts. 

Justice C Hari Shankar said that Rule 4 read with Rule 2(i) and 2(l) of the Intellectual Property Division (IPD) Rules, 2021, require writ petitions challenging orders passed by the IPAB to be decided by single judges and that there is no provision in the said Rules requiring such writ petitions to be dealt with by Division Benches.

The court said that even if the Delhi High Court Rules were to apply, then they too would require such writ petitions to be heard by a Single Judge.

“Nonetheless, even if one were to take this exception into consideration and, based on Rule 8(iii), take the DHC rules also into account, writ petitions against orders passed by the IPAB would still have to be heard by Single Judges, as they fall within Rule 1(xviii)(a) in Part B of Chapter 3 of the DHC Rules,” the court said.

It added that any hesitation or refusal by the Single Judge to hear the petitions, short of recusal, would amount to abdication of the judicial function vested in him.

“Recourse to the history of the IPD Rules, or the evolution of the statute from time to time, or the creation and abolition of the IPAB, as grounds not to exercise the jurisdiction vested, by the IPD Rules and even by the DHC Rules, in the Single Judge would, in my opinion, be completely unjustified,” the court said.

Furthermore, the court said that when the statute requires the writ petitions to be heard by a Single Judge, it cannot, by resorting to intricate principles of interpretation, refuse to exercise jurisdiction, or hold that such matters should be listed before the Division Bench.

“Where the IPD Rules require, mandatorily, these writ petitions to be heard and decided by a Single Judge, I am obligated, by my oath of office, to do so. It is well settled that a Court which is statutorily obligated to decide a matter cannot refuse to do so, unless, for reasons personal to the concerned Judge, she, or he, deems it appropriate to recuse,” the court said.

Title: AYUR UNITED CARE LLP v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR. and other connected matters

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 974

Click Here To Read Order