- Case number
- C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 156/2022
- Court
- Delhi High Court
- Date of judgment
- Judge
- Sanjeev Narula
- Outcome
- Dismissed
Headnote
A challenge to an order expediting a rival's application under Rule 34 of the 2017 Rules was dismissed with costs. The Rule imposes only three conditions: the official application number must have been received, so the request cannot be filed before or together with the application itself; the request must be on Form TM-M; and the prescribed fee must be paid. Nothing confines it to the pre-examination stage, and reading it that way would defeat its purpose, which is to fast-track applications stuck in the backlog. Expedited processing dilutes no prescribed timeline: it fast-tracks administrative steps only, and an opposition is still heard under Rule 50. Under the 2002 Rules the Deputy Registrar had a discretion; under the 2017 Rules every applicant may request expedition on payment. An allegation of bias without evidence was an unwarranted attack of no consequence.
Disposition
Dismissed with costs of Rs. 10,000 payable by the appellant to the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee.
Headnote by BRB Legal, written from the judgment: a summary for reference, not legal advice. Read the judgment itself before relying on it.