BAJAJ AUTO LIMITED versus TVS MOTOR COMPANY LTD.

Citation: [2009] 14 S.C.R. 548 · Decided: 16-09-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MARKANDEY KATJU · Disposal: Disposed off
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 548 
) ..., 
A 
BAJAJ AUTO LIMITED 
"' 
v. 
TVS MOTOR COMPANY LTD. 
(Civil Appeal No. 6309 of 2009) 
B 
SEPTEMBER 16, 2009 
[MARKANDEY KAT JU AND ASOK KUMAR 
GANGULY, JJ.] 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908:. 
c 
0.17,r.1(2), proviso (a) - Adjournment of hearing - Suit 
filed alleging infringement of patent - Interim injunction 
granted by single Judge of High Court - Appeal against 
interim order allowed by Division Bench of High Court -
D Matter reached Supreme Court - Suit still pending - HELD: 
+ ' 
After commencement of hearing of suits in matters relating 
-1 
) 
to patents, trade-marks, copyrights, proviso (a) to sub-rule (2) 
of r. 1 should be strictly complied with and hearing of suit in 
)-
such matters should proceed on day-to-day basis and final 
)o::: 
E judgment should be given normally within four months from 
~ 
the date of filing of the suit - In the instant case, although 
arguments were advanced at some length, instead of deciding 
" 
the case at interlocutory stage, the suit itself should be 
disposed of finally at a very early date - It is, therefore, 
F directed that the defendant would file written statement as 
indicated in the order and the High Court would commence 
"--. 
the hearing of the suit on day-to-day basis - Interim orders 
passed by Supreme Court are vacated and substituted by the 
directions given in the order- Indian Patents Act, 1973- Suits 
G - Hearing of suits relating to patents, trade-marks and 
copyrights - Practice and Procedure. 
Mis Shree Vardhman Rice and General Mills vs. Mis 
548 
H 
.. 
BAJAJ AUTO LIMITED v. TVS MOTOR COMPANY LTD . 
549 
J 
Amar Singh Chawalwal SLP(C) No. 21594 decided by 
A 
.. 
Supreme Court on 7.9.2009, relied on . 
_ CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 
6309 of 2009. 
B 
From the Judgment & Order dated 18.5.2009 of the High 
Court of Judicature at Madras in O.S.A. No. 92 of 2008. 
). 
WITH 
C.A. No. 631 O of 2009. 
c 
H."N. Salve, R.F. Nariman, Mahesh Agarwal, Rishi 
Agrawala, A.A. Mohan, Shiraj Dhure, Purnima Bhat for the 
~ 
Appellant. 
D 
Shanti Bhushan, Dr. AM. Singhvi, Gopal Jain, Priyanjali 
( 
Yadav, Anusuya Sandhu Sinha, Shiraz Contractor Patadia, 
-J 
Ankur Chawla, Pallavi Langor, Amrita Bhattacharya (for "Coac") 
for the Respondent. 
E 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
MARKANDEY KAT JU, J. 1. Leave granted. 
:. 
2. This Appeal has been filed against the impugned order 
F 
of the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Madras 
dated 18.5.2009 in O.S.A. No. 92 of 2008. 
3. It appears that a suit bearing No. C.S. No.1111 of 2007 
had been filed by the appellant herein before the learned Single G-
Judge of the Madras High Court alleging infringement of its 
patent No.195904 under the Indian Patents Act, 1973 (for short 
'the Act'). 
4. The learned Single Judge granted an interim injunction 
H 
j 
550 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009)-14 (ADOb;) s:c.R. 
. 
..._ ---.. 
~ -
.... 
A on 16th February, 2008. 
\ 
5. Challenging the said interim order dated 16th February, 
"' 
2008, an appeal was filed by the respondent-defendant before 
the Division Bench of tile Madras High Court which allowed the 
B appeal by the impugned ord~r dated 18.5.2009. 
6. Hence, this appeal before us by special leave.· 
7. It is evident that the'. suit is still pending before the learned 
C Single Judge of the Madras High Court. We are unhappy that 
the matter has been pending in the High Court at the 
interlocutory stage for such a long time as the suit was fiied in 
December, 2007 and yet even written statement has not been 
filed. 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
8. Recently, we have held in Special Leave Petition(C) 
No.21594 of 2009 decided on 07th September, 2009 in the 
case of Mls. Shree Vardhman Rice & Gen Mills vs. Mis Amar 
Singh Chaw"alwala as follows: 
" ... Without going into the merits of .the controversy, we are 
of the opinion that the matters relating to trademar:J<s, 
copyrights and patents should be finally decided very 
expeditiously by the Trial Court instead of merely granting 
or refusing to grant injunction. Experience sho'NS that in the 
matters of trademarks, copyrights and patents, litigation is 
mainly fought between the parties about the temporary 
injunction and that goes on for years and years and the 
result is that the suit is hardly decided finally. This is not 
proper. 
Proviso (a) to Order XVII Rule 1(2)C.P.C. states that when 
the hearing of the suit has commenced, it shall be 
continued from day-to
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.