Can an Intra-Court Appeal Be Filed Against a Single Judge’s Order in a Statutory Patent Appeal? Madras HC Clarifies [Read Order]

Chennai: The Madras High Court has held that an intra-court appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is not maintainable against an order passed by a Single Judge while deciding a statutory patent appeal under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970. The Court reiterated that Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, being a special enactment, prevails over the Letters Patent and does not permit a second appeal within the High Court.

A Division Bench comprising Justice S.M. Subramaniam and Justice C. Kumarappan delivered the decision on December 12, 2025, while rejecting an Original Side Appeal filed by Italfarmaco SPA challenging the order passed by a Single Judge of the Madras High Court in a patent matter.

The appellant, Italfarmaco SPA, an Italy-based company, had filed a patent application (No. 10810/CHENP/2012) before the Patent Office in Chennai. The Deputy Controller of Patents & Designs passed an order dated December 20, 2024, under Section 15 of the Patents Act, 1970, rejecting the grant of patent. Aggrieved by this order, the appellant filed an appeal under Section 117A of the Patents Act before the Madras High Court, which was numbered as CMA (PT) No. 45 of 2023.

The learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the appeal by order dated December 20, 2024. Against this order, the appellant filed an Original Side Appeal (Commercial Appellate Division) under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, read with Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.

The Registry of the Madras High Court raised an objection regarding the maintainability of the Original Side Appeal, questioning the maintainability of an OSA under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against a judgment passed in a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal (Patent).

The appellant contended that the order of the learned Single Judge in the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal should be construed as an “order-in-original.” Therefore, an intra-court appeal would lie under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. The appellant further argued that since the learned Single Judge decided the correctness of the order passed by the Deputy Controller of Patents & Designs under the Patents Act, an intra-court appeal would lie against the order of the learned Single Judge, akin to an order passed in a writ petition, which can be challenged by way of an intra-court appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.

The Division Bench examined the maintainability issue in detail. The Court noted that Section 117A of the Patents Act contemplates an appeal against orders passed by authorities under Section 15 of the Patents Act, 1970. In the present case, the Deputy Controller of Patents & Designs had admittedly passed the order under Section 15 of the Patents Act. Therefore, an appeal under Section 117A of the Patents Act had been entertained, numbered as a miscellaneous appeal, adjudicated, and a final order passed by the learned Single Judge.

The Court observed that while issues relating to copyright, patent, and design are defined as “commercial disputes” within the meaning of Section 2(1)(xvii) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, and the present appeal had been filed as an Original Side Appeal (Commercial Appellate Division), it was necessary to examine whether the appeal under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act was maintainable.

The Court emphasized that the Commercial Courts Act is a special enactment and would prevail over the Letters Patent. Chapter IV of the Commercial Courts Act provides for appeals, and Section 13 specifically deals with appeals from decrees of Commercial Courts and Commercial Divisions.

The Court referred to Section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act, which provides that any person aggrieved by the judgment or order of a Commercial Court at the level of District Judge exercising original civil jurisdiction or, as the case may be, a Commercial Division of a High Court, may appeal to the Commercial Appellate Division of that High Court within sixty days from the date of the judgment or order. However, the proviso to Section 13(1A) states that an appeal shall lie from such orders passed by a Commercial Division or a Commercial Court as are specifically enumerated under Order XLIII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, as amended by the Act, and Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Most significantly, the Court highlighted Section 13(2) of the Commercial Courts Act, which states: “Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force or Letters Patent of a High Court, no appeal shall lie from any order or decree of a Commercial Division or Commercial Court otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of this Act.”

The Court held that while sub-section (1A) of Section 13 enumerates the circumstances under which an aggrieved person may prefer an appeal to the Commercial Appellate Division of the High Court, the proviso clearly restricts such appeals to orders specifically provided under Order XLIII of the Code of Civil Procedure. Sub-section (2) of Section 13 makes it abundantly clear that the Commercial Courts Act will prevail over the Letters Patent of the High Court.

The Court observed that this legislative intent is explicit under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act. In the present case, an appeal had already been provided to the High Court under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970. The High Court was vested with powers to entertain a statutory appeal under the Patents Act, and such appeal had been numbered as a Miscellaneous Appeal and decided by the learned Single Judge. Since Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act contemplates appeals only from such orders passed by the Commercial Division as are specifically provided under Order XLIII of the Code of Civil Procedure, the present intra-court appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent was not maintainable.

The Court further held that any expansion of the scope of the Commercial Courts Act would defeat its objectives, and there was no ambiguity regarding appeals from decrees of Commercial Courts and Commercial Divisions under Section 13 of the Act. There was no scope to invoke Clause 15 of the Letters Patent for the purpose of entertaining the Original Side Appeal.

The Court emphasized that Section 13(1A) as well as sub-section (2) of Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act unambiguously define the scope of appeals before the Commercial Appellate Division. Consequently, the intra-court appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent was held to be not maintainable.

The Court concluded that the objection raised by the Registry of the Madras High Court regarding maintainability was in consonance with the provisions of law and therefore stood affirmed. Consequently, the Original Side Appeal (Commercial Appellate Division) was rejected.

Case Title: Italfarmaco SPA v. Deputy Controller of Patents & Designs, OSA (CAD) SR No. 72443 of 2025

[Read Order]