Ceres Intellectual Property Company Limited v Controller of Patents, Trade Marks and Designs (2022)

Summary

“The Petitioner filed National Phase application at the Indian Patent Office in respect of method for deposition of ceramic films for the use in manufacture of solid oxide fuel cells” (para 1). The “Petitioner received the impugned communication from Respondent No.1 rejecting the patent application in view of the directions of Respondent No.2 that the said patent application relates to the Atomic Energy. The Petitioner filed a Review Petition against the order dated 5th January 2017. The Review is rejected.” (para 1) The petitioner submitted that “Respondent No.1 has not given any reasons while rejecting the application of the Petitioner for patent except that in view of the directions from the Department of Atomic Energy and Section 4 of the Patent’s Act, 1970, patent cannot be granted” (para 2).

The Court held that “Reasons now are considered to be one of the limbs of the principles of natural justice” (para 5) and that “if the application of patent engulfs within its fold, the circumstances and/or inventions as detailed in Section 20(1) of the year 1962, the Authority has got powers to reject the patent application. However, the same is to be borne out from the reasons in the order.” (para 6) “In light of the above, as the impugned order is dehors the reasons, the impugned order is set aside.” (para 7) “Writ Petition accordingly disposed of. No costs.” (para 8)

What the court decided

1. Reasons and natural justice. “Reasons now are considered to be one of the limbs of the principles of natural justice. Reasons depict the mind of the person passing the order. The order bereft of reasons cannot be sustained.” (para 5)
2. A refusal on directions alone. “From perusal of the impugned order, it is manifest that the application has been rejected only on the ground that the directions are issued by the Department of Atomic Energy and in view of the said directions, the application is rejected.” (para 6)
3. The power to reject. “There cannot be a manner of doubt that if the application of patent engulfs within its fold, the circumstances and/or inventions as detailed in Section 20(1) of the year 1962, the Authority has got powers to reject the patent application. However, the same is to be borne out from the reasons in the order.” (para 6)
4. Disposition. “In light of the above, as the impugned order is dehors the reasons, the impugned order is set aside. The Respondent No.1 shall reconsider the application of the Petitioner for issuance of patent on its own merits in accordance with law and shall decide it a fresh expeditiously.” (para 7) “Writ Petition accordingly disposed of. No costs.” (paras 7–8)

Subsequent treatment

• Followed — In Huntington Alloys v Union of India (2026) the Bombay High Court (Bharati Dangre and Manjusha Deshpande JJ) held: “We find support to our view by the order passed in Writ Petition No.2257 of 2018” (para 16), reproduced paras 6 and 7 of this order, and set aside a refusal on a Department of Atomic Energy direction because “the order refusing the Patent Application is sans any reason” (para 17).

No further appeal traced as of 13 October 2026.