Arunachalaa Enterprises v R. Sukumar (2026)

Summary

“This Review Petition is filed to review the order dated 22.07.2026 passed in (PT) A.No. 5 of 2026 in O.P. (PT) No. 4 of 2026, and to stay all further proceedings therein.” (para 1) The review petitioner submitted “that the suit was instituted prior to filing of revocation petition and in the said suit, the revocation petitioner had not filed any counter claim seeking revocation of the patent” and “that once a suit had been filed, the only remedy available therein, is to file a counter claim seeking revocation of the patent” (para 2). Relying on Rajeev Indravadan Modi v Instance Laboratories Private Limited and Fabcon v Industrial Engineering (1986), counsel submitted that “when there is no express pleading in the suit with regard to revocation of patent, on which the suit for infringement had been filed, then such suit could not be transferred as done by this Court in the present case.” (para 2)

The Court held that “Section 64 entitles filing of a revocation petition independently or as a counter claim in a suit of infringement of the patent on the various grounds envisaged thereunder.” (para 5) It held that “if in such a suit, a claim for revocation had been made, the District Court is ousted of its jurisdiction and the suit is to be mandatorily transferred to the jurisdictional High Court” (para 7), that “This statutory right cannot be whittled down by forcing the litigant to choose a remedy by only filing a counter claim”, and that “the object enshrined under the provision of Order VIII CPC, not to drive the litigant to different forum also gets fulfilled in transferring the suit to this Court to be dealt with along with the revocation petition.” (para 8) Finding no “material error apparent on the record requiring a review of the order”, it held that “the review petition stands dismissed and consequently, the application to stay all further proceedings made in (PT) A.No.5 of 2026 stands closed. No costs.” (para 10)

What the court decided

1. Two modes of revocation. “Section 64 entitles filing of a revocation petition independently or as a counter claim in a suit of infringement of the patent on the various grounds envisaged thereunder.” (para 5) “As held above, the right of a defendant in a suit for revocation of patent had been given under Section 64 of the Act either to file an independent revocation petition or to file it by way of a counter claim in a suit filed for infringement of the said patent. This statutory right cannot be whittled down by forcing the litigant to choose a remedy by only filing a counter claim. Such statutory rights available to the litigant cannot be curtailed to the litigant in choosing the mode of revocation.” (paras 5, 8)
2. The proviso to section 104. “Section 104 proviso envisages that in a suit filed for infringement of patent, if a counter claim is made for revocation of the patent, then the said suit would have to be transferred to the jurisdictional High Court. The said proviso had been appended only for the simple reason that only the High Court have a jurisdiction to deal with the revocation of a patent and not any other Court subordinate to it. This would mean that the District Court is not conferred a jurisdiction to deal with the issues relating to revocation of patent.” (para 5)
3. Revocation sought during a suit. “A conceptional reading of the provisions of the Patent Act would indicate that a suit for infringement could be filed before the District Court. However, if in such a suit, a claim for revocation had been made, the District Court is ousted of its jurisdiction and the suit is to be mandatorily transferred to the jurisdictional High Court.” (para 7) The District Court “would have to either wait for the result of the revocation petition before this Court, which only has jurisdiction to decide the claim of revocation”. (paras 7–8)
4. The Apex Court’s judgment. Of “the judgment that had been referred to by this Court”, the Court held that “in a suit for infringement, a counter claim had been filed seeking revocation of the patent upon which the infringement suit has been instituted”, that “the Hon’ble Apex Court had held that once a counter claim had been filed for revocation, then, it was not upon the defendant to file an application for revocation of patent”, and that “originally the suit for infringement had been filed before the High Court, in which, a counter claim had been made and therefore, there is no question of proviso to Section 104 being applied therein.” (para 5)
5. The Gujarat and Allahabad decisions. “In the judgment of the Gujarat High Court, a factual finding had been recorded that there has been no written statements filed evidencing plea of revocation of patent as a counter claim.” “Similarly, the Allahabad High Court had also held that the proviso could not be invoked in the revision for transfer as there was no pleading with regard to the revocation of the patent. In the present case, the transfer application had been filed in a petition for revocation of a patent, based upon which, a suit had been filed and pending before the District Court.” (paras 6–7)
6. Order VIII and the single forum. “this Court is of the view that the object enshrined under the provision of Order VIII CPC, not to drive the litigant to different forum also gets fulfilled in transferring the suit to this Court to be dealt with along with the revocation petition.” (para 8)
7. Source of the power to transfer. “The power is not only available the proviso to Section 104 but also under clause Section 13 of the Letters Patent Act, which applies to this Court.” (para 8)
8. Procedure. Issues raised and answered. “This Court does not answer the issues without it being raised before it. This issue was argued and pressed by the learned counsel and this Court has to refresh the memory of the counsel, from the written submissions fortunately filed by the petitioner in this case.” (para 9)
9. Disposition. “For the aforesaid reasons, this Court do not find any material error apparent on the record requiring a review of the order and accordingly, the review petition stands dismissed and consequently, the application to stay all further proceedings made in (PT) A.No.5 of 2026 stands closed. No costs.” (para 10)

Subsequent treatment

No later judicial treatment and no further appeal traced as of 5 October 2026.