Note: We have thoroughly reviewed the judgment, and it does not clearly explain how the case reached the Supreme Court. Therefore, we have not provided the procedural history of the case.

Facts:

• J Mitra (Petitioner), a company involved in the development and manufacture of diagnostic kits and related products, filed for a grant of patent.
• Span Diagnostics, (Respondent) a company in the diagnostic industry, filed a pre-opposition application in 2003 after the patent was published. However, Span Diagnostics' opposition failed, and the patent was eventually granted to J Mitra.
• Span Diagnostics filed an appeal against the Controller's decision in the High Court under the Section 116 of the Patents Act, stating that the appeal "must be dismissed as being misconceived."
• The delay in enforcing Section 61 of the Patents (Amendment) Act, 2005 until 2.4.07 created a peculiar situation. While the Legislature had intended to establish only one statutory appeal to the Appellate Board, the delay in implementing Section 61 led to appeals filed during the interim period, including the present case, being susceptible to dismissal on grounds of being misconceived, as contended by the Appellant. . This is the controversy which needed to be resolved in this case.
  
  

Main Issue:

Whether the suit would be maintainable before the High Court if the Indian Legislature had already expressed its desire to eliminate appeals in relation to pre-grant opposition proceedings, even though the executive had not notified the same?