2015 (7) TMI 1184 - HC - Indian Laws

Inordinate delay in pronouncing the Judgment - Held that - We may notice that the learned Counsel for the Third Respondent wanted to file Counter -Affidavit on merits but we put to him that we are not really examining the controversy on merits and our setting aside the Order of the Second Respondent is solely on account of the inordinate delay in pronouncing the Judgment without commenting on the merits of the controversy. We have thus no option but to set aside the Order dated 9.3.2010 of the Second Respondent solely on the ground of extraordinary delay in pronouncing the Judgment after six years. Consequently the Order of the IPAB dated 24.2.2014 would also have to go. We are of course conscious of the fact that this once again sets the clock back but there is no other option in the given circumstances. Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts we expect the Second Respondent to dispose of the Opposition Application within a period of two months from the receipt of a copy of this Order based on the records already available and the submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties.

Summary

Issues:
Impugning IPAB order based on delay in pronouncement of judgment.

Analysis:
1. The Writ Petitioner challenged the IPAB Order dismissing the Appeal against the Order by the Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks due to a significant delay in pronouncing the judgment. The Court expressed concern over the failure to appreciate evidence and the long delay of six years between reserving and pronouncing the Orders. Records were requested to ascertain if the delay was an isolated incident or a systemic issue affecting other cases as well.

2. The current Deputy Registrar filed an Affidavit revealing that out of 383 concluded opposition cases between 2013 and 2015, most orders were passed promptly. Only 13 cases experienced delays, indicating that the issue was not widespread. Efforts were made to clear the backlog of cases, with over half of the pre-2013 cases disposed of.

3. The Supreme Court's emphasis on timely pronouncement of judgments was highlighted, citing that delayed justice is akin to denied justice. Guidelines were laid down to ensure judgments are pronounced promptly, including adding dates of reserving and pronouncing judgments in the records, monthly reporting of pending cases, and allowing parties to file for early judgment if delays exceed three months.

4. The Court stressed that Tribunals, like the IPAB, should adhere strictly to the guidelines on timely judgment pronouncement. A circular was issued to address pending cases, and the need for compliance with the Supreme Court's directives was emphasized. The Order in question was set aside due to the six-year delay in pronouncement, leading to the dismissal of the IPAB's order as well.

5. The Court clarified that the decision to set aside the Order was solely due to the delay in pronouncing the judgment, not based on the merits of the case. The Third Respondent's request to file a Counter-Affidavit on merits was declined, as the focus was on addressing the delay issue.

6. Consequently, the Order of the Second Respondent and the IPAB's order were both set aside. The Second Respondent was directed to dispose of the Opposition Application within two months from the receipt of the Court's Order. The Writ Petition was disposed of, with each party bearing their own costs.