Summarize the following court judgment. Civil Appeal No. 1490 of 1984. From the Judgment and Order dated 16.2.1984 of the Madras High Court in O.S.A. No. 217 of 1982. section Chellaswamy	 N.H. Hingorani	 Mrs. Kapila Hingorani	 Mrs. Rekha Pandey and D. Sadasivan for the Appellants. F.S. Nariman	 M.K. Rao	 P.N. Ramalingam and A.T.M. Sampath for the Respondent. 122 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by CHINNAPPA REDDY	 J. The long and grasping hand of a Multi National Company	 the Monsanto Company of St. Lous	 Missouri	 United States of America	 has reached out to prevent alleged infringement of two of their patents (Numbers 104120 and 125381) by the defendant	 an Indian Private Limited Company. Though the suit	 as initially laid	 was with reference to two patents	 the suit was ultimately confined to one patent only (Number 125381)	 the period for which the other patent (104120) was valid having expired during the pendency of the suit. The suit was decreed by the trial court	 but was dismissed by the appellate court. The appeal which is now before us has been filed pursuant to a certificate granted by the appellate bench of the High Court on the ground that substantial questions of law of great public importance were involved. The questions	 however	 were not specified in the certificate. As we see it	 we are unable to find any substantial questions of law of great importance. We are afraid both the lower courts misdirected themselves and missed the real substance of the dispute and found themselves chasing the mirage of legal questions which did not strictly arise. We may first refer to a few preliminary facts. Weeds	 as is well known	 are a menace to food crops	 particularly crops like rice which belong to the grass variety. Research has been going on for years to discover a weed killer which has no toxic effect on rice	 that is to say	 a Herbicide which will destroy the weeds but allow rice to survive without any deleterious effect. For long the research was futile. But in 1966 67 came a break through. A Scientist Dr. John Olin discovered CP53619 with the formula '2 Chlore 2 '	6 ' Diethyl N (Butoxy Methyl) Acetanilide ' which satisfied the requirement of a weed killer which had no toxic effect on rice. The annual report of the International Rice Research Institute for 1968 state	 "Weed control in rice was an important part of the Agronomy program. The first agronomic evidence of the efficacy of granular trichloroethyl styrene for the selective control of annual grasses in transplanted rice was obtained at the Institute. Another new accession	 CP53619	 gave excellent weed control in transplanted flooded and non flooded	 upland rice. " It was further stated "CP53619 at 2 and 4 k.g./ha a.i. appeard at least twice among the 20 best treatments" and "the most outstanding new pre emergence herbicide was 2 chloro 2 '	 6 ' diethyl N (butoxymethyl) acetanilide (CP 53619). " The 123 annual report of the International Rice Research Institute for 1969 shows that the herbicide CP 53619 came to acquire the name of Butachlor. It is now necessary to refer in some detail to the averments in the plaint	 as the decision of the case	 in the view that we are taking	 turns very much on what the plaintiffs themselves had to say about their case. The first plaintiff is the Monsanto Company and the second plaintiff is a subsidiary of the first plaintiff registered as a Company in India. It was stated in the plaint that the first plaintiff was the patentee of inventions entitled "PHYTOTOXIC COMPOSITIONS" and "GRASS SELECTIVE HERBICIDE COMPOSITIONS"	 duly patented under patent number 104120 dated March 1	 1966 and 125381 dated February 20	 1970. The claims and the particulars relating to the inventions were stated to be contained in the specifications of the two patents annexed to the plaint as annexure I and II. After stating so much the plaintiffs said	 and this is very important	 "THE ACTIVE INGREDIENT MENTIONED IN THE CLAIM IS CALLED "BUTACHLOR". It suggested	 without expressly saying it that the Plaintiffs ' patents covered Butachlor also which in fact it did not	 as we shall presently see. It was next stated that the first plaintiff had permitted the second plaintiff to work the patents from 1971 onwards under an agreement dated September 3	 1980. The second plaintiff had been manufacturing and marketing formulations according to the Patents Numbers 104120 and 125381 and 'a specimen tin containing formulations produced by the second plaintiff according to the said two patents and sold in the market by the second plaintiff ' was produced along with the plaint as M.O.I. It came to the notice of the plaintiffs	 it was averred	 that the defendant was attempting to market a formulation of Butachlor covered by the said patents. They	 therefore	 wrote to the defendant drawing their attention to the existence of the patents in their favour. Some correspondence ensued. In the second week of May	 1981	 the second plaintiff found that the defendant was marketing formulation of Butachlor covered by the patents of the first plaintiff. Sample tins of "Butachlor 50" manufactured by the defendant were purchased by the plaintiffs and were produced along with the plaint as M.O.s 3 and 4. The legend on the tins was as follows : "Delchor 50 Composition (Butachlor 50%E.C.) Butachlor 50% W/W Herbicide Solvents and Emulsifiers 50% W/W" 124 According to the plaintiffs	 the legend on the tins containing the substance manufactured by the defendants showed that what was sold by the defendants was nothing but a reproduction of the first plaintiff 's patented formulations. The formulations of the defendant were sent to Shri Ram Institute for analysis and they were said to contain the chemical "Butachlor Chemical formula for which is 2 Chloro 2 ' 6 ' Diethyl N (Butoxymethyl) Acatanilide. " On these averments	 the plaintiffs alleged that the defendant had infringed their Patents Numbers 104120 and 125381 by selling formulations covered by them. The plaintiffs used for an injunction to restrain the defendant from infringing their Patents Numbers 104120 and 125371 by the manufacture or sale of the infringing formulations as contained in this marked as M.O.Nos. 2 and 3. The Plaintiffs also asked for an account etc. Annexed to the plaint were the two specifications relating to Patent Numbers 104120 and 125381. In the specification relating to "Phytotoxic Composition" (Specification No. 104120)	 it was claimed : "We Claim : 1. A phytotoxic composition comprising as an active ingredient a compound of the formula shown in Figure 1 of the accompanying drawings	 wherein R1 and R2 are alkyl of alkoxy having from 1 to 10 carbon atoms	 R3 is halogen	 alkyl or alkoxy having from 1 to 10 carbon atoms	 n is an integer from 0 to 3	 A is oxygen or sulfur	 X is chlorine	 bromine or iodine	 and Z	Z1 and Z2 are hydrogen	 alkyl	 alkoxy	alkenyl or alkynyl having from 1 to 18 carbon atoms	 aryl having from 6 to 24 carbon atoms	 heterocyclyl having a miximum of 24 carbon atoms and from 1 to 3 hetero atoms	 or two of Z groups are combined to form a bivalent alkylene radical having from 1 to 6 carbon atoms in admixture with an adjuvant such as herein described	 the active ingredient in the said composition being present in an amount of at least 0.1 per cent by weight. A phytotoxic composition as claimed in Claim 1	 wherein the active ingredient is 2 ' tertbuty 1 2 chloro N (2 prophynyloxy methyl) 6 'methyl acetanilide. 125 3. A phytotexic composition as claimed in Claim 1	 wherein the active ingredient is 2 ' tertbutyl 2 chlore N (2 prophynyloxy methyl) 6 ' methyl acetani lide. A phytotexic composition as claimed in Claim 1	 wherein the active ingredient is 2 ' tertbutyl 2 chlore N(allyloxymethyl) 6 ' methylacet anilide. A phytotoxic composition as claimed in Claim 1	 wherein the active ingredient is 2 tertbutyl 2 brome N methexy methyl 6 ' methylacetanilide. 6. A phytotoxic composition as claimed in Claim 1	 wherein the active ingredient is 2 ' tertbutyl 2 broome N (2 prophynylexymethyl) 6 methylacetani lide. A phytotoxic composition as claimed in Claim 1	 wherein the active ingredient is 2 chloro 2 '	 6 disthyl N (methoxymethyl) acetanilide. A phytotoxic composition as claimed in Claim 1 wherein the active ingredient is 2 ' tertbutyl 2 bromo N (allyloxymethyl) 6 ' methylacetanilide. 9. A phytotoxic composition as claimed in Claim 1	 wherein the active ingredient is 2 ' tertbutyl 2 choloro N (2 methoxyethoxymethyl) 6 ' methylacetan ilide. A phytotoxic composition as claimed in Claim 1	 wherein the active ingredient is 2 ' tertbutyl 2 bromo N (2 methoxyethoxymethyl) 6 methylace tanilide. A phytotoxic composition as claimed in Claim 1	 wherein the active ingredient is 2 bromoe 2 ' terbutyl N (2	3 dihydroxypropoxyomethyl) 6 methylacetanilide. A phytotoxic composition as claimed in Claim 1	 wherein the active ingredient is 2 chloro 2 '	 6 dimethyl N (isoproposymethyl) acetanilide. 13. A phytotoxic composition substantially as herein before described. " 126 In the specification relating to Grass selective Herbicide Compositions (Specification No. 125381)	 it was claimed: "We claim: 1. A herbicidal composition in the form of an emulsion	 suspension or dispersion	 comprising as active ingredient a compound selected from the group. a) 2 '	6 ' diethyl N butoxymethyl alpha chloroaceta nilide	 and b) 2 '	 6 ' diethyl N (2 butoxyethyl) alpha chloro acetanilide	 or a mixture of (a) and (b) in admixture with one or more diluents or carriers and surface active agents in which an emulsion is obtained by dissolving the active ingredient in an organic solvent and thereafter dispereing the solution in another liquid medium in the presence of an emulsifying agent such as herein described. A composition as claimed in claim 1	 which further comprises one or more compounds selected from the following conventional pesticides	 fertilizers	 and extenders such as herein described. A composition as claimed in claim 2	 wherein mineral extenders such as natural clays	 phyro phyllites and vermiculite having a perticle size of 2000 to 149 microns	 preferably of 1410 to 250 microns	 are used. A herbicidal composition in the form of an emulsion	 suspension or dispersion substantially as hereinbefore described. " We do not propose to set out in detail the contents of the written statement. It is sufficient to state that the Defendant claimed as he was entitled to do under section 107 of the 	 that the patents were liable to be revoked under section 64(1) (a)	(b)	(d)	(e)	(f)	(g)	(h)	(i)	(j)	(k)	(l) and (m) of the . The defendant also made counter claim seeking revocation of the patents. 127 A close scrutiny of the plaint and a reference to the evidence of the witnesses for the plaintiff atonce exposes the hollowness of the suit. We must begin with the statement in the plaint that "THE ACTIVE INGREDIENT MENTIONED IN THE CLAIM IS CALLED 'BUTACHLOR '" which suggests that Butachlor was covered by the Plaintiffs ' patents and the circumstance now admitted that no one	 neither the plaintiff nor any one else	 has a patent for Butachlor. The admission was expressly made by PW 2	 the power of attorney holder of the first plaintiff and Director of the second plaintiff company. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs also admitted the same before us. PW 1	 Dr. Dixon	 Chemist of the first plaintiff company	 after explaining the use of an emulsifying agent	 in answer to a direct question	 whether his company claimed any patent or special knowledge for the use of any particular solvent or particular emulsifying agent	 in the formulation in their patent	 had to admit that they had no such patent or special knowledge. He further admitted that the use of solvent and emulsifying agent on the active ingredient was one of the well known methods used in the pesticide industry to prepare a marketable product. He also expressed his inability to say what diluents or emulsifying agents the defendant used in their process. PW 2 admitted that Butachlor was a common name and that the Weed Science Society of America had allotted the common name. He stated that "Machete" was the brand name under which their company manufactured Butachlor. He also stated that there could be a number of concerns all over the world manufacturing Butachlor	 but he was not aware of them. He admitted that they did not claim a patent for Butachlor. He stated that though his company did not claim a patent for Butachlor	 they claimed a patent for the process of making a Butachlor emulsifiable concentrate to be used as a Herbicide composition for rice. Pursued further in cross examination	 he was forced to admit that they used kerosene as a solvent for Butachlor and an emulsifier manufactured by a local Indian company as an emulsifying agent. He then proceeded to state that he claimed secrecy with regard to the manufacture of their formulation. When he asked further whether the secrecy claimed was with regard to the solvent or with regard to the stabilizer	 he answered in the negative. He finally admitted that his secret was confined to the active ingredient Butachlor about which as we know there is no secret. PW 3	 Robert Galson Depenning the patent agent of the first plaintiff under a power of attorney from the first plaintiff	 stated that it was he that had verified the plaint and that it 128 was on his instructions that the plaint was drafted. He stated that according to him	 by selling his formulations the defendant had infringed Patents Numbers 104120 and 125381	 though he was unable to explain which part of his claim in Patent Number 104120 was infringed as he was not a Chemist. He stated that he said so and was able to say so in consultation with the Managing Director of the second plaintiff company. He stated that it was explained to him by PW 2 that both the Patents Numbers 104120 and 125381 were infringed. He also admitted that it was he that had signed the specification of 104120 and while he was not sure whether he had signed the specification Number 125381	 he saw that it had been signed by Depenning and Depenning. We	 therefore	 see that Butachlor which was the common name for CP 53619 was discovered	 even prior to 1968 as a Herbicide possessing the property of nontoxic effect on rice. The formula for the Herbicide was published in the report of the International Rice Research Institute for the year 1968 and its common name Butachlor was also mentioned in the report of the International Rice Research Institute for the year 1969. No one patented the invention Butachlor and it was the property of the population of the world. Before Butachlor or for that matter any Herbicide could be used for killing weeds	 it had to be converted into an emulsion by dissolving it in a suitable solvent and by mixing the solution with an emulsifying agent. Emulsification is a well known process and is no one 's discovery. In the face of the now undisputable fact that there is no patent for or any secrecy attached to Butachlor	 the solvent or the emulsifying agent and the further fact that the process of emulsification is no new discovery	 the present suit based on the secrecy claimed in respect of the active agent Butachlor and the claim for the process of emulsification must necessarily fail. Under sec. 61(1)(d)	 a patent may be revoked on the ground that the subject of any claim of the complete specification is not an invention within the meaning of the Act. Under sec. 64(e)	 a patent may be revoked if the invention so far as claimed in any claim of the complete specification is not new	 having regard to what was publicly known or publicly used in India before the date of the claim	 etc. Under sec. 64(1)(f)	 a patent may be revoked if the invention so far as claimed in any claim of the complete specification is obvious or does not involve any inventive step having regard to what was publicly known or publicly used in India or what was published in India before the priority 129 date of the claim (the words "or elsewhere" are omitted by us as the patents in the present case were granted under the Indian Patents and 	 i.e.	 before the ). "Invention has been defined by secc. 2(j) as follows: " Invention" means any new and useful (i) art	 process	 method or manner of manufacture; (ii) machine	 apparatus or other article; (iii) substance produced by manufacture	 and includes any new and useful improvement of any of them	 and an alleged invention. " It is clear from the facts narrated by us that the Herbicide CP 53619 (Butachlor) was publicly known before Patent Number 125381 was granted. Its formula and use had already been made known to the public by the report of the International Rice Research Institute for the year 1968. No one claimed any patent or any other exclusive right in Butachlor. To satisfy the requirement of being publicly known as used in clauses (e) and (f) of sec. 64(1)	 it is not necessary that it should be widely used to the knowledge of the consumer public. It is sufficient if it is known to the persons who are engaged in the pursuit of knowledge of the patented product or process either as men of sciene or men of commerce or consumers. The section of the public who	 as men of science or men of commerce	 were interested in knowing about Herbicides which would destroy weeds but not rice	 must have been aware of the discovery of Butachlor. There was no secret about the active agent Butachlor as claimed by the plaintiffs since there was no patent for Butachlor	 as admitted by the plaintiffs. Emulsification was the well known and common process by which any Herbicide could be used. Neither Butachlor nor the process of Emulsification was capable of being claimed by the plaintiff as their exclusive property. The solvent and the emulsifier were not secrets and they were admittedly not secrets and they were ordinary market products. From the beginning to the end	 there was no secret and there was no invention by the palintiffs. The ingredients	 the active ingredient	 the solvent and the emulsifier	 were known; the process was known	 the product was known and the use was known. The plaintiffs were merely camouflaging a substance whose 130 discovery was known through out the world and trying to enfold it in their specification relating to Patent Number 125381. The patent is	 therefore	 liable to be revoked. We do not think that it is necessary for us to go into the various questions of law so carefully and meticulously argued by Mr. Chellaswamy. The questions were no doubt interesting and arose for the first time. But we desire to keep our interest purely academic and within bounds. So we do not pronounce upon those questions. The appeal is dismissed with costs. M.L.A. Appeal dismissed.

The plaintiff appellant instituted a suit against the respondent on the ground that its inventions entitled "Phytotoxic Compositions" and "Grass Selective Herbicide Compositions" duly patented containing the active ingredient "Butachlor" was infringed by the defendant respondent marketing "Delchor 50" a formulation of "Butachlor" which was alleged to be covered by the plaintiff 's Patent No. 125381. In the written statement	 the defendant respondent claimed that the patents were liable to be revoked under s.64(1)(a)	 (b)	 (d)	 (e)	 (f)	 (g)	 (h)	 (i)	 (j)	 (k)	 (l)	 and (m) of the . The suit was decreed by the trial Court	 but was dismissed by the appellate court. Dismissing the appeal	 ^ HELD : 1(i) Under section 61(1)(d)	 a patent may be revoked on the ground that the subject of any claim of the complete specification is not an invention within the meaning of the Act. Under sec. 64(e)	 a patent may be revoked if the invention so far as claimed in any claim of the complete specification is not new	 having regard to what was publicly known or publicly used in India before the date of the claim	 etc. Under sec. 64(1)(f)	 a patent may be revoked if the invention so far as claimed in any claim of the complete specification is obvious or does not involve any inventive step having regard to what was publicly known or publicly used in India or what was published in India before the priority date of the claim. [128 G H; 129 A] 121 1(ii) To satisfy the requirement of being publicly known as used in clauses (e) and (f) of sec. 64(1)	 it is not necessary	 that it should be widely used to the knowledge of the consumer public. It is sufficient if it is known to the persons who are engaged in the pursuit of the knowledge of the patented product or process either as men of science or men of commerce or consumers. [129 D E] 2. Butachlor which was the common name for CP 53619 was discovered	 even prior to 1968 as a Herbicide possessing the property of non toxic effect on rice. The formula for the Herbicide was published in the report of the International Rice Research Institute for the year 1968 and its common name Butachlor was also mentioned in the report of the International Rice Research Institute for the year 1969. No one patented the invention Butachlor and it was the property of the population of the world. Before Butachlor or for that matter any Herbicide could be used for killing weeds	 it had to be converted into an emulsion by dissolving it in a suitable solvent and by mixing the solution with an emulsifying agent. Emulsification is a well known process and is no one 's discovery. Neither Butachlor nor the process of Emulsification was capable of being claimed by the plaintiffs as their exclusive property. [128 C E] In the instant case	 the solvent and the emulsifier were admittedly not secrets and they were ordinary market products. From the beginning to the end	 there was no secret and there was no invention by the plaintiffs. The ingredients	 the active ingredients the solvent and the emulsifier	 were known; the process was known	 the product was known and the use was known. The plaintiffs were merely camouflaging a substance whose discovery was known throughout the world and trying to enfold it in their specification relating to Patent Number 125381. The patent is	 therefore	 liable to be revoked. [129 F G; 130 A]