9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (9) TMI 1219X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petitions filed by the petitioner in the Original Revocation Applications pending before the Tribunal. 2. The matter arises under the Patents Act. The facts which are necessary for the disposal of the writ petition could be briefly set out as hereunder:- The first respondent herein (hereinafter referred to as the Company ) had filed 18 Original Revocation Applications before the Tribunal for revocation of the patent granted in favour of the writ petitioner under Section 64 of the Patents Act. In the said original revocation application, the writ petitioner filed the miscellaneous petitions for dismissal of the original petitions. The case of the writ petitioner was that he is the owner of the various Patents, pursuant to the grant of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for dismissal of the revocation petition. 4. The first respondent resisted the application by filing a reply, inter alia contending that the miscellaneous petition for revocation has been affirmed by one Mr.Balan Kombi and no documentary proof has been shown that the said Mr.Balan Kombi is competent to affirm the reply and that as per the Board resolution dated 27.04.2007, Mr.Yogesh Mehra has been duly authorised to defend and institute suits and proceedings on behalf of the company and that in terms of the said resolution, Mr.Yogesh Mehra, being the Managing Director has the requisite locus standi to file and institute the revocation proceedings on behalf of the company. 5. Apart from the above, in the reply, the respondent company ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he matter would submit that the writ petitioner has raised the question of locus standi of the first respondent to maintain the application for revocation and such issue ought to have been decided by the Tribunal at the first instance. That the Tribunal has mixed the concept of locus standi and concept of person interested as defined under the Patents Act and therefore, the order of the Tribunal calls for interference. That the finding of the Tribunal is that the proceedings before the Company Law Board will not affect the proceedings before the Tribunal is erroneous. Further, it is contended that there is no urgency for the Original Revocation Application to be taken up for consideration, when such applications of the year 2006 are still p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d meeting can be convened or held and no circular resolution is to be proposed be circulated. This order of the CLB came to be passed on 19.05.2008, and the writ petitioner did not seek the leave of the Company Law Board to hold any Board meeting and at this stage of the matter, the petitioner cannot contend that because of the order passed by the Company Law Board his rights are affected. 9. We have given our anxious consideration to the contention raised by both the parties and perused the materials available on record. 10. Admittedly, the preliminary issue raised by the petitioner before the Tribunal does not relate to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, but rather the locus standi of one Mr.Yogesh Mehra, to maintain the application ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
