On behalf of the respondent Controller it is fairly submitted, that there
are no reasons in the impugned order and the impugned order cannot be
sustained.
A bare perusal of the impugned order would indicate that the Controller
has simply arrived at a conclusion that the subject application for patent was
liable to be rejected on the ground of obviousness, lack of inventive steps and
lack of novelty. The broad manner in which the impugned order has been
passed reflects that though the Controller has said everything but in fact said
nothing. There are no reasons in the impugned order. It is now well settled that
reasons form a critical aspect of any order. In State Bank of India vs. Ajay
Kumar Sood (2023) 7 SCC 282, it has been held as follows;