2003 (3) TMI 528 - HC - Companies Law

Issues Involved:
1. Interpretation of section 100A of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC).
2. Maintainability of appeal under section 109(5) of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958.
3. Conflict between the CPC and special statutes like the Trade Marks Act.
4. Applicability of the Letters Patent in the context of intra-court appeals.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Interpretation of Section 100A of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC):
The central question was whether section 100A of the CPC, which bars further appeals in certain cases, prevents an appeal to a Division Bench against a single Judge's order under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958. Section 100A, inserted by the CPC Amendment Act, 1976, and further amended by the CPC Amendment Acts of 1999 and 2002, bars "any further appeal" from a single Judge's decision in appellate jurisdiction. The High Court analyzed that section 100A was intended to minimize delays by limiting the number of appeals. However, it was clarified that section 100A does not override the substantive right of appeal provided by special statutes like the Trade Marks Act.

2. Maintainability of Appeal under Section 109(5) of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958:
Section 109(5) of the Trade Marks Act expressly provides a right of appeal to a Division Bench against a single Judge's decision. The High Court held that this right is a substantive one conferred by a special law, which is preserved under section 4(1) of the CPC. Therefore, the non obstante clause in section 100A of the CPC does not affect this right. The Court emphasized that the Trade Marks Act is a special statute, and its provisions prevail over the general procedural code of the CPC.

3. Conflict Between the CPC and Special Statutes Like the Trade Marks Act:
The High Court reiterated the principle that a special statute prevails over a general law in case of conflict. The Trade Marks Act, being a special law, provides specific provisions for appeals that are not overridden by the general provisions of the CPC. The Court cited previous judgments, including the Supreme Court's decision in Shah Babulal Khimji v. Jayaben D. Kania, which established that in case of conflict, the provisions of the special statute prevail.

4. Applicability of the Letters Patent in the Context of Intra-Court Appeals:
The High Court examined the interplay between the Letters Patent and the CPC. It was noted that Clause 15 of the Letters Patent allows for intra-court appeals, but this is subject to legislative amendments. The Court held that the Letters Patent does not override the specific provisions of special statutes like the Trade Marks Act. The decision in Jaimin J. Desai's case was analyzed, and it was clarified that section 100A bars appeals under the Letters Patent only in the context of the CPC and not under special statutes.

Conclusion:
The High Court concluded that:
- Section 100A of the CPC bars further appeals only in the context of the CPC and does not affect the substantive right of appeal under special statutes like the Trade Marks Act.
- Appeals under section 109(5) of the Trade Marks Act are maintainable before a Division Bench, notwithstanding section 100A of the CPC.
- The decisions in Madhusudan Vegetables Products Co. Ltd.'s case and Jaimin J. Desai's case are confined to the non-maintainability of appeals under the CPC and do not apply to appeals provided by special statutes.
- The preliminary objection against the maintainability of the appeals was overruled, and the appeals were directed to be placed before the appropriate Division Bench.

← Previous Next →