Skip to content

CS Professional · Intellectual Property Rights - Law and Practice · Indian Patent Law and its Developments

Counsel for Meera Industries argues that because Section 162(5) saves pending suits 'notwithstanding anything contained in this Act', a pending infringement suit must be decided under old law, and Section 162(4) is irrelevant to repeals. Which is the best analysis?

Counsel is right that the pending suit continues as if the 1970 Act had not been passed, but wrong that Section 162(4) is irrelevant. That sub-section says particular matters mentioned do not prejudice the general application of the General Clauses Act, 1897 on repeals.

  1. ACounsel is right on both points since the savings clause overrides everything
  2. BCounsel is right on the pending suit but wrong on Section 162(4), which preserves the General Clauses Act, 1897 with respect to repealsCorrect
  3. CCounsel is wrong on the pending suit because the suit must be decided under the 1970 Act
  4. DCounsel is wrong on both points since the General Clauses Act replaces Section 162(5)

Explanation

Section 162(5) lets pending suits continue as if the Act had not been passed. Section 162(4) states that mentioning particular matters does not prejudice the general application of the General Clauses Act, 1897 on repeals, so it remains relevant. Counsel's second claim therefore fails.

Did you get it right without looking?

One question tells you little. A timed set on Indian Patent Law and its Developments shows your real accuracy, how long you take and where you lose marks.

Practise Indian Patent Law and its DevelopmentsFree diagnostic mock

More Indian Patent Law and its Developments questions