Facts: The appellants applied for a patent titled "THREAD TYPE TAMPER EVIDENT SECURITY SEAL", which was refused by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs on June 14, 2023, following pre-grant opposition. Aggrieved by this refusal, the appellants filed a Commercial Miscellaneous Petition under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970, before a Single Judge of the Bombay High Court. The Single Judge dismissed the petition on March 27, 2025, upholding the Controller's decision. The appellants then preferred the present Commercial Appeal under Section 13(1-A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, before the Division Bench.
Procedural Posture: The case reached the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court as a commercial appeal against the judgment of a Single Judge who was exercising appellate jurisdiction over an order of the Controller of Patents.
Issue: Whether an intra-court appeal is maintainable under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, against a judgment rendered by a Single Judge while deciding an appeal under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970, in light of the bar contained in Section 100-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Holding: No, the appeal is not maintainable. The court held that the bar under Section 100-A of the CPC applies to such proceedings, prohibiting a second appeal when the first appeal has been decided by a Single Judge of the High Court.
Reasoning: The Court reasoned that while the Patents Act and Commercial Courts Act do not explicitly bar a further appeal, Section 13(2) of the Commercial Courts Act stipulates that appeals must be in accordance with the Act's provisions. The Court observed that the Controller of Patents, while not a "Civil Court" in the traditional sense, possesses the "trappings of a court" and exercises quasi-judicial functions. Consequently, the proceedings before the Single Judge were appellate in nature. Section 100-A of the CPC was introduced to minimize delays and ensure finality by barring a third-tier challenge (second appeal) once a Single Judge has adjudicated an appeal. Since the Commercial Courts Act does not expressly exclude Section 100-A, the statutory embargo applies, rendering the intra-court appeal incompetent.