- Court
- Madras High Court
- Date of judgment
- Bench
- M. Sundar, K. Govindarajan Thilakavadi W. A
- Outcome
- Set aside
Headnote
Writ appeal in post-grant opposition, allowing a challenge to the Opposition Board's procedure to be heard rather than left to the Controller. The Division Bench held that the correctness of the Board's procedure cannot be tested by the Controller at the final hearing, since that would be testing a parameter on which the whole exercise is pivoted within the exercise itself. The recommendation is not binding on the Controller but it is a determinant in post-grant opposition. The word documents in Rule 56(4) includes documents and evidence, read with Rules 57 to 61. The Court recorded that it is not denuded of its constitutional power of judicial review over the Board's recommendation or its procedure. It also noted that section 159(2) contains no specific head for prescribing the Board's procedure, so the procedure prescribed is only that under Chapter VI of the Rules.
Headnote by BRB Legal, written from the judgment: a summary for reference, not legal advice. Read the judgment itself before relying on it.