Indian Casablancas High Draft Co v Millowners' Association of Ahmedabad (1934)

Summary

“In this matter the petitioners applied for an extension of Indian Patent No. 3294 by a petition dated January 10, 1934, and addressed to the Governor-General in Council.” “The objectors now appearing filed their objections before the Controller as provided in rule 25.” “Having regard to the inquiry involved in the matter, under the power given by Section 15 of the Act, the Governor-General in Council has referred the matter to the High Court for decision.” (para 1) On the Prothonotary’s advice “the petitioners filed another petition addressed to the Hon’ble the Chief Justice and other Judges of the Court on February 14, 1934.” “On the service of those notices the three objectors filed fresh affidavits in which, besides the grounds mentioned in their objections filed before the Controller, they have contended that the petition must fail inter alia because the petitioners had failed to make a full and free discovery of all material facts” (para 2). The petitioners urged that “by reason of rule 25 (10) the grounds of objection filed before the Controller are exhaustive.” (para 4)

The Court held that “This is the first case which has been referred to this Court under the Act, and under the circumstances there is obviously no precedent on the point.” (para 5) It accepted that “it is the petition originally submitted to the Governor-General in Council, and referred to the High Court for its decision, which the High Court should dispose of.” (para 3) It held that “on a reference to the High Court by the Governor-General in Council the matter ceases to be merely administrative and becomes a judicial proceeding” and that “the Court has jurisdiction to allow them to file such fresh objection provided this could be done according to the law relating to amendment of pleadings.” (para 5) “In the present case, I think the further objections contained in the affidavits filed on behalf of the objectors should be inquired into.” “The objectors are given leave to utilise those affidavits in support of their further grounds of objection” (para 6).

What the court decided

1. The petition the Court disposes of. The petitioners’ counsel pointed out “that the procedure of filing a second petition is misconceived because under Section 15 of the Act it is the petition originally submitted to the Governor-General in Council, and referred to the High Court for its decision, which the High Court should dispose of. In my opinion that submission is correct.” (para 3)
2. Nature of the reference proceeding. “The reason for referring the petition to the High Court appears to be that the matter involves taking of evidence and determination of questions of fact and which requires a judicial decision. Section 15 (4) of the Act provides that if the petition be referred to the High Court the patentee and the objectors shall be made parties to the proceeding and the Controller shall be entitled to appear and be heard. It, therefore, appears that on a reference to the High Court by the Governor-General in Council the matter ceases to be merely administrative and becomes a judicial proceeding” and “the Controller has also the right of audience.” (para 5)
3. The procedure at the hearing. “In the High Court Rules no procedure is separately prescribed for the hearing of such a petition, and, in the absence of such provision, I think, the ordinary rules of procedure followed by the High Court, devoid of its technicalities, should be adopted so far as the same are applicable to the particular case.” (para 5)
4. Division of work under the rules. “Under the Indian law it appears that a part of the work in connection with the extension of patents is delegated to the Controller and the ultimate decision rests with the Governor-General in Council or, in the event of a reference to the High Court, with the High Court. Rule 25 framed under the Act makes the Controller the authority to receive the petitions, objections, replies to objections and to prepare the materials for forwarding the same to the Governor-General in Council in the first instance.” (para 5)
5. The inquiry into profits. “The decisions in In re Bower-Barf Patent” ... “and In re Adair’s Patent (1881) 6 App. Cas. 176 suggest that when an extension of a patent is asked for, it would be legitimate for the Court to inquire what profits the inventor had made since its registration, and that inquiry may not be limited to what the inventor earned in his country but might include profits made by him in all countries where the invention was registered or exploited. It further appears that in such cases the Court insists on a full disclosure of the profits made by the inventor or his assignees” ... “the Court may summarily reject the application.” (para 5)
6. The Court’s duty under section 15(5). “Under Section 15 (5) it is the duty of the Court to inquire into the profits made by the patentee and into all the circumstances of the case. I think, apart from any specific objection raised by an objector, it will be open to an objector to point out to the Court that the petition did not disclose the materials which the applicant was bound to disclose. The objectors would thus be entitled to point that out to the Court in this proceeding without raising a specific objection.” (para 5)
7. Fresh grounds of objection. To the contention that “by reason of rule 25 (10) the grounds of objection filed before the Controller are exhaustive” (para 4), the Court held: “once the petition is referred to the High Court under the Act and the petition becomes a judicial proceeding, it cannot be successfully contended that the High Court has no jurisdiction to allow any objector to add further grounds to his objection, which were not put before the Controller” ... “In my opinion, therefore, even if it was necessary to have an objection in writing from the objectors, the Court has jurisdiction to allow them to file such fresh objection provided this could be done according to the law relating to amendment of pleadings.” (paras 4–5)
8. Procedure. Leave to amend. “The petitioners are not taken by surprise because those affidavits were filed so far back as March 17, 1934, i.e., soon after the notices were served on the objectors.” “I would give the objectors leave to amend their objections and add to the same the grounds contained in the affidavits filed by them in March, 1934. The objectors are given leave to utilise those affidavits in support of their further grounds of objection” (para 6)

Subsequent treatment

No later judicial treatment and no further appeal traced as of 16 October 2026.