Summary
In the case of Glorious Investment Limited vs Dunlop International Limited & Anr., the Calcutta High Court held that an intra-court appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is not maintainable against an order passed by a Single Judge under Section 91 of the Trade Marks Act. The court reasoned that such orders fall within the scope of appellate jurisdiction as contemplated under Section 100A of the Code of Civil Procedure, thereby attracting the statutory bar.
Trademark Appellate Jurisdiction Dispute
The appellant, Glorious Investment Limited, filed an intra-court appeal before the Division Bench against an order passed by a Single Judge under Section 91 of the Trade Marks Act. The Single Judge had set aside a decision of the Registrar of Trademarks and remanded the matter for reconsideration. The appellant challenged this order under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.
Question Before the Court
Whether an intra-court appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is maintainable against an appellate order of a Single Judge under Section 91 of the Trade Marks Act, in light of the bar under Section 100A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Arguments Presented By the Parties
Appellant (Glorious Investment Limited)
-
-
- Submitted that Section 100A CPC only applies to appeals from decrees or orders passed by civil courts.
- Argued that since the original order was from the Registrar of Trademarks under a special statute, the bar under Section 100A would not apply.
-
Respondent No. 1 (Dunlop International Limited)
-
-
- Contended that Section 91 proceedings are appellate in nature and clearly fall within the ambit of Section 100A CPC.
- Argued that the intent of the provision is to limit further appeals from decisions of Single Judges exercising appellate jurisdiction under any law.
-
Court’s Analysis on Maintainability of Intra-Court Appeal under Section 91
The court examined the text and purpose of Section 100A of the Code of Civil Procedure. It stated that the provision bars further appeals from decisions of a Single Judge who is exercising appellate jurisdiction, irrespective of whether the original decision came from a civil court or a statutory authority. The court cited a Supreme Court precedent which interpreted Section 100A as intending to reduce successive appeals and to bring finality to appellate decisions by Single Judges.
The court distinguished earlier cases decided before the insertion of Section 100A and observed that those precedents no longer apply. It stated that the plain language of Section 100A bars any appeal from a Single Judge’s appellate decision, and that this includes appeals under special statutes like the Trade Marks Act.
Findings
-
-
- An intra-court appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is not maintainable against an order passed by a Single Judge under Section 91 of the Trade Marks Act.
- Section 100A CPC applies to such decisions as they arise from the exercise of appellate jurisdiction.
- The intra-court appeal was dismissed as not maintainable.
-
Relevant Paras
Para 34: “We, therefore, hold that the intra-Court appeal preferred by the appellant under clause 15 of the Letters Patent of this Court is not maintainable in view of the bar contained in Section 100A of the CPC.”
Para 29: “… the exercise of appellate jurisdiction by a Single Judge under Section 91 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, would attract the bar under Section 100A, irrespective of whether the Registrar is a civil court.”
Case Citation: Glorious Investment Limited vs Dunlop International Limited & Anr., TEMPAPO – IPD 5 of 2025, Calcutta High Court, decided on 4 November, 2025.
Disclaimer
This case blog is based on the author’s understanding of the judgment. Understandings and opinions of others may differ. An AI application was used to generate parts of this case blog. Views are personal.
