- Court
- Madras High Court
- Date of judgment
- Judge
- Abdul Quddhose
- Outcome
- Remanded
Headnote
Refusal under sections 3(d) and 3(e) set aside as a non-speaking order and the application remanded for fresh consideration. The Deputy Controller had not engaged with the appellants' contentions or with the expert declaration on the higher stability of the claimed crystalline form, and reasoned orders are mandatory when a patent is refused, audi alteram partem being indispensable. The Court also held that section 59 entitles an applicant to amend the original application by way of disclaimer, correction or explanation in order to strengthen the case for grant, and that doing so is not an alteration of the application where the applicant has never shifted its position on the contents of the original filing. The Court was careful to say it could not assume the role of the Controller and substitute its own decision.
Headnote by BRB Legal, written from the judgment: a summary for reference, not legal advice. Read the judgment itself before relying on it.