- (1.) Mr. Ghosh, claiming to have been representing the respondent no.4 Bihar Rubber Company Limited, submits that this Court has no jurisdiction going by the language of the determination given by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice. However, Mr. Ratnanko Banerjee, learned Advocate disputes the locus of the appearance of Mr. Ghosh. We think this matter was taken up day before yesterday, when no one raised this question. As we feel when the question is raised it is incumbent upon the Court to decide the matter first. We, therefore, set out inter alia the exact text of the determination in relation to the "appeals from orders arising out of interlocutory matters relating to Company, Arbitration, Admiralty (excluding suits, trade mark, patent Act and Designs Act) and also appeals from orders arising out of originating summons, other suits and also civil appeals from orders which have not been assigned to any other Bench including connected applications".
(2.) We are of the view this Court cannot entertain any interlocutory appeal in relation to suits arising out of Trade Mark, Patent and Designs Act. However, this Court is also conferred with the jurisdiction to entertain the appeals from order arising out of other suits and also civil appeals from orders which have not been assigned to any other Bench including connected applications.
(3.) Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after checking up the prayers of the plaint it does not appear that this matter falls within the exceptional category which has not been given to this Bench.;