A petition to revoke Indian Patent No. 199716 under Section 64 of the Patents Act was dismissed for non-prosecution. The petitioner never appeared before the Delhi High Court despite repeated unserved notices and court efforts.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~1
MR SUBRATA KUMAR BAKSI .....Petitioner
Through: None
versus
MR MAHESH GUPTA .....Respondent Through: Mr. Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, CGSC, with Mr. Srish Kumar Mishra and Mr. Alexander Mathai Paikaday, Advs. (Through VC)
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA
O R D E R % 21.10.2024
This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/07/2025 at 03:56:34
“The court notice of the petitioner sent to his Kolkata address is still awaited. The court notice of its counsel has been received back unserved with the report of “left”.
Accordingly issue court notice to the petitioner at his Kolkata address, returnable for 17.05.2023.”
“The court notice sent to the petitioner at his Kolkata address is once again awaited. The court notice earlier sent to his counsel was unserved (see: order dated 01.03.2023).
Accordingly issue fresh court notice to the petitioner at his Kolkata address, through the office of the concerned District and Sessions Judge, returnable for 05.10.2023.
It is noted that the counsel for the respondent had already appeared in these proceedings on 15.11.2022, but not thereafter.”
under:
“The court notice of the counsel for the petitioner was received back unserved with the report of “left”. This noting pertains to the hearing dated 25.04.2024. The court notice of the petitioner is however yet not received back. Despite repeated efforts, the court notices of the petitioner could not be served.
The respondents have already been served. (Refer: order dated 25.04.2024).
List the matter before the Hon'ble Court for further proceedings on 21.10.2024.”
This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/07/2025 at 03:56:34
appearance before this Court, despite the petition having been filed by the petitioner himself before the IPAB.
MINI PUSHKARNA, J
OCTOBER 21, 2024/kr
This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/07/2025 at 03:56:34
1 issue framed by the court
Should a petition for revocation of Indian Patent No. 199716 be dismissed where the petitioner has failed to appear or be served after transfer from the IPAB?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Mr Subrata Kumar Baksi
Mr Mahesh Gupta
Mini Pushkarna
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
