Nathan and Associates - A Solution focused Law firm

Nathan and Associates - A Solution focused Law firm M/s. Nathan & Associates is a solution focused law firm, having vast experience in reputed advocacy.!

25/06/2026

Delhi High Court Imposes Costs for “Unnecessary Litigation” in Patent Suit

Key Issue:
Whether a plaintiff can withdraw a suit with liberty to refile when its own evidence undermines the foundation of the claim.

Facts:
In Pawan Kumar Goel v. Dr. Dhan Singh & Anr., the plaintiff instituted a patent infringement suit alleging unauthorised use of a patented process relating to the extraction of Alpha Yohimbine. During the proceedings, an expert report submitted by the plaintiff itself concluded that the defendant’s extraction process was materially different from the patented process in question.

In light of this development, the plaintiff sought withdrawal of the suit with liberty to institute fresh proceedings. It was further argued that the dispute could be reframed on a different basis by focusing on issues relating to raw material rather than the extraction process itself.

The defendant opposed the request, contending that the plaintiff was attempting to avoid the consequences of its own evidence and prolong litigation without a valid legal basis.

Judgement:
The Delhi High Court declined to permit withdrawal with liberty to refile and imposed costs of ₹50,000 on the plaintiff. The Court observed that the plaintiff’s own expert evidence had substantially weakened the infringement claim and that permitting withdrawal in such circumstances would effectively allow a party to circumvent legal limitations.

The Court further clarified that the patent in question covered only the extraction process and not the raw material itself. Therefore, the plaintiff could not subsequently reshape the dispute to sustain an otherwise untenable claim.

The ruling reinforces that litigation must be pursued responsibly and parties may face consequences where proceedings are found to be unnecessary or unsupported by their own evidence.

Citation:
Pawan Kumar Goel v. Dr. Dhan Singh & Anr., 2026 SCC OnLine Del 389

17/06/2026

Bombay High Court Sets Aside Patent Rejection, Emphasises Mandatory Examination Process

Key Issue:
Whether the Patent Office can reject a patent application solely on the basis of a pre-grant opposition without completing the mandatory examination process under the law.

Facts:
In AIC246 AG & Co. KG v. Controller of Patents, AIC246 AG & Co. KG challenged the rejection of its patent application by the Patent Office. The dispute arose after a pre-grant opposition had been filed against the application.

The petitioner contended that despite an earlier assurance by the Controller that an examination hearing would be conducted, the scheduled hearing was cancelled and never rescheduled. Subsequently, the patent application was rejected without granting an opportunity of hearing during the examination stage.

It was argued that such rejection bypassed the mandatory statutory procedure and denied procedural safeguards guaranteed under the patent framework.

Judgement:
The Bombay High Court set aside the rejection order and held that the approach adopted by the Patent Office was arbitrary and contrary to the statutory framework under the Patents Act.

The Court clarified that examination proceedings and pre-grant opposition proceedings are distinct mechanisms and must operate independently. It observed that the existence of a pre-grant opposition cannot justify bypassing the examination process or denying an applicant the opportunity of hearing.

The Court further emphasised that a hearing at the examination stage is a mandatory procedural safeguard intended to ensure fairness and transparency. Accordingly, the matter was remanded for fresh consideration before a different Controller.

Citation:
AIC246 AG & Co. KG v. Controller of Patents, 2026:BHC-OS:5637, Comm. Misc. Petition No.72/2025, Order dated 27 February 2026

03/06/2026

Kerala High Court Sets Aside Banking Ombudsman Order for Lack of Reasons

Key Issue:
Whether quasi-judicial authorities such as the Banking Ombudsman are required to pass reasoned and speaking orders, particularly when directed by the Court.

Facts:
In Anthony Wilson v. Banking Ombudsman, borrowers challenged a unilateral increase in the interest rate on their gold loan by South Indian Bank Ltd from 14.5% to 17%. Aggrieved by the revised rate, the borrowers approached the Banking Ombudsman seeking redressal.

The matter had previously come before the Kerala High Court, which directed the Ombudsman to reconsider the complaint and pass a reasoned order after examining all relevant materials. However, upon reconsideration, the Ombudsman rejected the complaint without addressing critical documents or explaining whether relevant information had been considered and shared with the borrowers.

The borrowers once again approached the High Court, contending that the order lacked transparency and failed to comply with the earlier judicial directions.

Judgement:
The Kerala High Court set aside the Ombudsman’s order and emphasised that reasoned decisions are fundamental to fairness and transparency in quasi-judicial proceedings. The Court observed that an authority exercising adjudicatory powers cannot merely record conclusions without disclosing the basis for arriving at them.

The Court further noted procedural deficiencies, including the absence of a properly signed and reasoned order. It held that failure to provide reasons deprives affected parties of the ability to understand the decision-making process and undermines accountability.

Accordingly, the matter was remitted for fresh consideration with directions to pass a proper and reasoned order within four months. The ruling reinforces that justice must not only be done but must also appear to have been done through transparent and reasoned adjudication.

Citation:
Anthony Wilson v. Banking Ombudsman, 2024 Latest Caselaw 953 Ker

Address

#41/83, II Floor, Armenian Street, Mubarak Manzil
Chennai
600001

Opening Hours

Monday 9am - 9pm
Tuesday 9am - 9pm
Wednesday 9am - 9pm
Thursday 9am - 9pm
Friday 9am - 9pm
Saturday 9am - 5pm

Website

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when Nathan and Associates - A Solution focused Law firm posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Shortcuts

Share

Category