Facts of the Case

This is a trademark registration matter and has nothing to do with GST law — the reference to GST in the case papers is only because the Trademark Registry's office in Chennai is located on GST Road, Guindy. The petitioner, Ansarul Islam Charitable Trust, challenged an order dated 24.01.2023 (Ext.P6) passed by the third respondent (Senior Examiner of Trademarks) in relation to its trademark application, primarily on the ground that the order was passed without affording it an opportunity of being heard.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the impugned order was passed in violation of principles of natural justice, since the petitioner was not afforded a hearing.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • Counsel explained that although a video-conferencing link was offered by the third respondent, a technical failure prevented the connection, and as a result the petitioner's version could not be presented before the impugned order was passed.

Respondent's Arguments

  • The Central Government counsel conceded that the impugned order (Ext.P6) was indeed issued without hearing the petitioner, but attributed the fault to the petitioner for not availing the opportunity offered, and requested that the Court not make any affirmative declaration in the petitioner's favour even if the order was set aside.

Court Order / Findings

  • The Court allowed the writ petition and set aside Ext.P6, expressly clarifying that this was not a finding against the order on its merits, but solely because it was, admittedly, passed without hearing the petitioner.
  • A consequential direction was issued to the third respondent to reconsider the petitioner's application after affording it an opportunity of hearing, and to pass an appropriate order within two months of receipt of the judgment.

Important Clarification

This order does not decide the merits of the petitioner's trademark application, nor does it involve any GST question — the appearance of GST Road in the case title is purely an address reference. It is a routine natural-justice remand: whenever a hearing is offered but fails for technical reasons beyond a party's fault, the resulting order is liable to be set aside and the matter reconsidered afresh.

Sections Involved

  • Trade Marks Act, 1999 — governing the examination and registration of the petitioner's trademark application.
  • Article 226, Constitution of India — writ jurisdiction, invoked on grounds of breach of natural justice.

Decision – In Favour of

Decided in favour of the petitioner to the extent that the impugned order was set aside and the matter remanded for a fresh hearing; no declaration was made on the merits of the trademark claim itself.

Case Details

Court: High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam
Case No.: WP(C) No. 10839 of 2023
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Devan Ramachandran
Date of Judgment: 20.09.2023

Link to Download the Order

Click here to view/download the full order

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.