Meta Title: Visa International v. Visa International Service Association: Trademark Quasi-Judicial
Authority Examined
Meta Description: In the recent ruling, Visa International Ltd. v. Visa International Service
Association (2024), the Calcutta High Court emphasized that the Associate Managers at Trademark
Registry are incompetent to issue quasi-judicial orders. The complete statutory analysis is here.
INTRODUCTION
The Calcutta High Court pronounced a landmark judgment on August 2, 2024, in the case Visa
International Ltd. v. Visa International Service Association 1 , IPDTMA Nos. 82 & 83 of 2023 and
IPDTMA No. 1 of 2024, wherein they dealt with the scope and limitation of the powers of the
contractual Associate Managers at the Trademark Registry. Justice Krishna Rao held that on a
contractual appointment, Associate Managers were not vested with the jurisdiction to make quasi-
judicial orders; therefore, the decisions made by him in the impugned orders in opposition
proceedings under the Trade Marks Act, 1999 were quashed 2 .
The main issue proposed in the appeals was whether officers with a title of “Associate Manager”
were authorized by law to hear opposition proceedings and to make reasoned orders. The appellants
argued that the impugned orders were invalid ab initio because they were made by persons whose
terms had expired or who were not armed with statutory powers to exercise such quasi-judicial
powers under the Act.
The Trade Marks Act, 1999, s 3(2) enables the Central Government to appoint officers to perform
the duties of the Registrar, under the superintendence and direction of the Registrar, and that he/she
can designate such officers as he/she thinks fit. Also, Section 2(2) (d) widens the scope of the term
Registrar to cover any officer so authorised. The Calcutta High Court, however, pointed out that
although administrative powers can be delegated under this section, quasi-judicial powers, like
determination of oppositions, are to be clearly and lawfully delegated, which was not in the instant
case.
The appellants relied on cases to emphasise their submission that actions performed by authorities
without jurisdiction become a nullity. The Supreme Court in Hindustan Zinc Ltd. v. Ajmer Vidyut
Vitran Nigam Ltd. 3 , declared that jurisdictional flaws make orders invalid and such arguments can be
made at any point. Also, in Rajasthan State Industrial Dev. & Inv. Corp. v. Subhash Sindhi Coop.
Hsg. Society 4 , it was reinforced that void actions do not require any set aside; they are a void ab initio.
In the same manner, in Noor Mohammad v. Khurram Pasha 5 the Court has highlighted that where a
statute lays down a certain procedure, the same must be followed and other means or ways are
1 Visa Int’l Ltd. v. Visa Int’l Serv. Ass’n, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 1234
2 Kankanala, Dr. Kalyan . “Only Officers having Quasi Judicial Authority Can Pass Trademark Orders, says the Calcutta
High Court.” bananaip.com. BananaIP, 2 Sep. 2024. Web. 7 Jul. 2025. <https://www.bananaip.com/intellepedia/trademark-
quasi-judicial-authority-calcutta-high-court-ruling>
3 Hindustan Zinc Ltd. v. Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., (2019) 17 SCC 82
4 Rajasthan State Indus. Dev. & Inv. Corp. v. Subhash Sindhi Coop. Hsg. Soc’y, (2013) 5 SCC 427.
5 Noor Mohammad v. Khurram Pasha, (2022) 9 SCC 23.
unacceptable. All these principles backed the argument presented by the appellants that orders made
by officers who were not allowed to do so lacked legal sanctity.
The appellants have also used the Intellectual Property Attorneys Ass v. Union of India 6 , where the
Delhi High Court ruled that the Registrar under the Trade Marks Act carries out quasi-judicial duties.
Such adjudicatory functions, therefore, can only be exercised by such officers as are duly empowered
under the Act.
On the contrary, the respondents claimed that the appointments of such officers as Mr. Shraman
Chattopadhyay and Mr. Saurabh Dubey had been done by way of public notice, contractual
appointment and supported by office orders which empowered them to hold departmental hearings.
The case law they referred to was J.K. Medical System (P) Ltd. v. Union of India 7 in which the
Madras High Court ruled that the Central Government has the power to appoint any officers of any
designation to discharge the duties of the Registrar, on the condition of adequate authorisation.
An additional backing was based on B. Premanand v. Mohan Koikal 8 , wherein the Supreme Court
approved of a literal rule of statutory interpretation, that is, the language of the statute cannot be
distorted or expanded unnecessarily. In The Registrar, Trademarks v. Kumar Ranjan Sen 9 , it was
ruled that the administrative superintendence of the Registrar does not extend to quasi-judicial
directions. The respondents further argued that procedural legitimacy in the disputed orders and
appointments were confirmed by such judgments.
However, Calcutta High Court opined that there was no material on record to demonstrate that on
the date of delivery of impugned order (September 16, 2023), the contractual appointment of Mr.
Chattopadhyay (which had lapsed on March 31, 2023), had been extended. On the same note, no
legitimate devolution of the quasi-judicial authority to Mr. Saurabh Dubey was demonstrated. Also,
with the Recruitment Rules which were notified in 2011 under Article 309 of the Constitution, the
designation of Associate Manager was not recognized and therefore the status of the supposed roles
is not valid.
By reference to State of Punjab v. Gurdev Singh 10 , and N. Mani v. Theatre 11 , the Court again stated
that, acts committed without legal authority will be deemed as void and thus may be questioned at
any moment. Further, in Prasun Roy v. Calcutta Metropolitan Dev. Authority 12 , the Supreme Court
ruled, where there was a jurisdictional defect, acquiescence would not repair the defect.
Eventually, the Calcutta High Court quashed the impugned orders issued by the Associate Managers
and referred the cases back to a competent authority to be adjudicated on afresh within a period of
six months. The Court was emphatic that the delegation of quasi-judicial powers under Section 3(2)
has to be legitimate, in traceable and understandable otherwise, the decisions that are made cannot
stand the test of the law.
6 Intellectual Prop. Att’ys Ass’n v. Union of India, 2014 SCC OnLine Del 1912.
7 J.K. Med. Sys. (P) Ltd. v. Union of India, MANU/TN/5856/2023.
8 B. Premanand v. Mohan Koikal, (2011) 4 SCC 266.
9 Registrar, Trademarks v. Kumar Ranjan Sen, 1965 SCC OnLine Cal 33.
10 State of Punjab v. Gurdev Singh, (1991) 4 SCC 1
11 N. Mani v. Theatre, (2004) 12 SCC 278.
12 Prasun Roy v. Calcutta Metro. Dev. Auth., (1987) 4 SCC 217
This ruling highlights a crucial point about the administrative law in India that the delegation of
power must comply with the letter and spirit of the statutes. It also serves as testimony to the
judiciary in ensuring that the adjudicatory functions under the Trade Marks Act are executed by those
who are legitimately entitled to do so, thus maintaining the integrity of the Intellectual property rights
system.
CONCLUSION
The judgment of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Visa International Ltd. v. Visa International
Service Association (2024) is an important reminder that the statutory power cannot be presumed or
improvised, least with regard to quasi quasi-judicial role. The core of this judgment can be seen in the
fact that this is a cardinal provision of administrative and constitutional law, that an adjudicatory
exercise of any statute, including the Trade Marks Act, 1999 by an officer can only be suitably
fulfilled upon those officers who are duly authorized through legal means.
The fact that the Court overturned orders which were merely passed by contractual Associate
Managers whose appointments were lapsed or otherwise not recognized as statutory has enabled the
Court to draw a line between administrative convenience and its legal validity. The judgment also
supports the premise that the statutory process has to be observed even in an administrative system
where oppositions are pending and faster resolution is possible. The use of administrative shortcuts
that disregard the hierarchy of authority provided in the statute or have not provided adequate
delegation of authority may turn the whole legality process invalid.
Besides, the decision elucidates the subtle difference existing between administrative and quasi-
judicial powers under Section 3(2) of the Act. Although an officer might be charged with the right of
administering certain duties under the watch of the Registrar, the quasi-judicial power makes a
different mark- a legal amendment in lieu of a clear statutory delegation and adherence to procedure.
This case provides precedent that more attention is paid to appointments and power matters in
intellectual property management and beyond. It gives very clear signals to regulatory agencies and
governmental institutions that the efficiency of an institution can never be at the expense of being
legal. Significantly, it also guarantees that the rights of applicants and objectors in the disputes of
trademarks are determined and passed by those officers who have the legal means as well as
structural authority to do so.
The judgment sets a critically important judicial benchmark as the issues are sent back to be adjudged
afresh to safeguard due process in the trademark law in India.
Tags/Keywords: Trade Marks Act, quasi-judicial powers, Calcutta High court, associate manager,
registrar, trademark opposition, IP law, delegation of power, Visa international case, 2024.