In W.P.(C)-IPD 50/2021-DEL HC- Court cannot treat postings on Facebook as determinative of location of person at particular point of time, rules Delhi HC
Justice C.Hari Shankar [12-12-2022]

Read Order: VINOD KUMAR v. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY APPELLATE BOARD AND ORS 

LE Correspondent

New Delhi, December 14, 2022: While considering the petition assailing the order of the Intellectual Property Appellate Board in Rectification Petitions, the Delhi High Court has held that the postings on Facebook cannot be treated as determinative of the location of a person at a particular point of time, at least by a Court.

In this matter before the Bench of Justice C.Hari Shankar, the IPAB had proceeded to pass directions against Counsel for having made false averments before it with respect to availability of one of the Counsels. It had also awarded costs and had referred the matter to the Bar Council of India in the event of failure to pay the costs imposed.

5. In the present petition, this Court, directed the Counsel who had been appearing in the matter before the IPAB to file individual affidavits, explaining their failure to be present before the IPAB on December 30, 2020.

Three Counsels were appearing on behalf of the Respondent before the IPAB and the Board proceeded on the premise that Akshay Srivastava was the lead Counsel.  Before this Court, it had been submitted that the arguing Counsel before the IPAB was Suwarn Rajan Chauhan who was indeed under quarantine and expired on April 30, 2021.

The  Court was unable to sustain the impugned order, insofar as it refused to adjourn the matter on the premise that Akshay Srivastava was the lead Counsel and that he was at Chennai on the date when the matter was taken up.

Before taking an adverse view against the Counsel on the basis of a Facebook post, and referring the matter to the Bar Council of India, the IPAB ought, at the very least, to have given an opportunity to the Counsel to explain the circumstances, the Bench held.

“Postings on Facebook cannot be treated as determinative of the location of a person at a particular point of time, at least by a Court. Even if a Court is to take an adverse view in that regard, the Counsel ought to be given an opportunity to explain the position before such a view is taken”, the Bench said.

The Bench was of the concerned opinion that the IPAB was needlessly strict in imposing costs and referring the matter to the Bar Council of India in such circumstances.

“ In view of the fact that Suwarn Rajan Chauhan was indeed quarantined at the relevant time and expired, unfortunately, thereafter, this Court is not entering into any of the other aspects of the matter regarding non-absence of Counsel on behalf of the petitioner on 30th December 2020”, the High Court held.

Restoring the rectification petitions filed by the Respondent for re-hearing, the Bench held that the order passed by the IPAB would stand restored and remain in operation till this Court decides the two rectification petitions.