Delhi High Court rules that single judges can hear and decide on petitions challenging IPAB orders

The Delhi High Court recently held that single judges of the High Court are competent to decide on writ petitions challenging the orders passed by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) before its abolition on April 4, 2021. [Ayur United Care LLP v Union of India & Anr].Justice C Hari Shankar passed the ruling while rejecting a contention by a party to an intellectual property rights dispute that only division benches of the High Court could hear petitions against IPAB orders. ."I am of the opinion that writs against orders passed by the IPAB prior to its abolition can be heard and decided by the Single Judge of this Court," he held in an October 16 judgment..Justice Shankar reasoned that Rule 4 of the Intellectual Property Division (IPD) Rules, 2021, effectively states that “IPR Subject Matter or case or proceeding or dispute” shall be decided by a single judge of the IPD.The Court said that the decision of IPAB constitutes an “IPR Subject matter” within the meaning of Rule 2(i) of the IPD Rules.“Even if, arguendo (for the sake of argument), the DHC Rules were to apply, they, too, would require these writ petitions to be heard by a Single Judge,” the Court added.The Court further said that the only exception is with respect to cases that have to be decided by a division bench as per Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015..Justice Shankar made the observations while dealing with a preliminary objection against the listing of a 2013 case, which involved a challenge to an IPAB order, before a single bench. The Court said the argument that the hearing of appeals against IPAB orders by single judges would result in “incongruity and abnormality” was fundamentally misconceived.It explained that while hearing and deciding a challenge to an order passed by the IPAB, the High Court acts as a court with jurisdiction of supervision and judicial review. “While hearing and deciding an original rectification petition, this Court is exercising an original jurisdiction vested in it by statute. There is, therefore, no incongruity at all, if the Single Judge exercises both powers, for the simple reason that the Single Judge of this Court is regarded, conceptually, as judicially superior to the IPAB,” the Court said..One of the arguments before the Court was that the single judge would have to reconsider the matter himself if it were deemed appropriate to remand the matter for reconsideration, since the IPAB does not exist anymore. Rejecting the argument, the Court said that in such scenarioes, the single judge would consider the matter de novo or afresh.“It is not as though the Single Judge is remanding the matter to himself. The matter is remanded for reconsideration to the authority who, at that point of time, is competent to adjudicate on it. That the said authority happens to be the Single Judge does not convert the order into a remand by Caesar to Caesar,” it added.In conclusion, the Court opined that any hesitation or refusal - short of recusal - by a single judge to hear such matters would amount to an abdication of judicial functions..Advocates N Mahabir, PC Arya, Noopur Biswas, Sushant Singh, Akshat Gupta and Saurav Pattnaik represented the petitioners.Central Government Standing Counsel (CGSC) Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar with advocates Srish Kumar Mishra, Sagar Mehlawat, Alexander Mathai Paikaday Sriram, Krishnan V and CGSC Vikram Jetly with Shreya Jetly represented the Union of India.Senior Advocate Arvind Varma with advocates J Sai Deepak, Afzal B Khan, Samik Mukherjee, Debjyoti Sarkar, advocates Ajay Sahni, Ankit Sahni, Chirag Ahluwalia and Mohit Maru represented other respondents.Senior Advocate Akhil Sibal was the Amicus Curiae and appeared with advocates Asavari Jain and Sanya Kumar..[Read Judgment]