Bajaj Auto Limited v TVS Motor Company Limited (2009)

Summary

“This Appeal has been filed against the impugned order of the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Madras dated 18.5.2009 in O.S.A. No. 92 of 2008.” (para 2) “It appears that a suit bearing No. C.S. No.1111 of 2007 had been filed by the appellant herein before the learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court alleging infringement of its patent No.195904” (para 3); “The learned Single Judge granted an interim injunction on 16th February, 2008.” (para 4) The Division Bench, in TVS Motor Company v Bajaj Auto (2009), “allowed the appeal by the impugned order dated 18.5.2009.” (para 5) The Court recorded that it was “unhappy that the matter has been pending in the High Court at the interlocutory stage for such a long time as the suit was filed in December, 2007 and yet even written statement has not been filed.” (para 7)

Recalling its order in M/s. Shree Vardhman Rice & Gen Mills vs. M/s Amar Singh Chawalwala, the Court held that “suits relating to the matters of patents, trademarks and copyrights are pending for years and years and litigation is mainly fought between the parties about the temporary injunction. This is a very unsatisfactory state of affairs” (para 9), and directed “that the directions in the aforesaid order be carried out by all courts and tribunals in this country punctually and faithfully.” (para 9) It was “of the opinion that instead of deciding the case at the interlocutory stage, the suit itself should be disposed of finally at a very early date.” (para 10) It directed that “the suit shall be finally disposed of on or before 30th November, 2009” (para 11), that “The respondent shall be entitled to sell its product but it shall maintain an accurate records/accounts of its all India and export sales” (para 13), and that “The Appeal is disposed of accordingly. No costs.” (para 17)

What the court decided

1. Expedition in intellectual property suits. Quoting its order in M/s. Shree Vardhman Rice & Gen Mills vs. M/s Amar Singh Chawalwala, Special Leave Petition (C) No. 21594 of 2009, that “in matters relating to trademarks, copyright and patents the proviso to Order XVII Rule 1(2) C.P.C. should be strictly complied with by all the Courts, and the hearing of the suit in such matters should proceed on day to day basis and the final judgment should be given normally within four months from the date of the filing of the suit.” (para 8), the Court held: “We direct that the directions in the aforesaid order be carried out by all courts and tribunals in this country punctually and faithfully.” (paras 8–9)
2. Final disposal over interlocutory decision. “In the present case, although arguments were advanced at some length by the learned counsel for both the parties, we are of the opinion that instead of deciding the case at the interlocutory stage, the suit itself should be disposed of finally at a very early date.” (para 10)
3. Directions for the trial. “Hence, without going into the merits of the controversy, we direct the respondent-defendant to file written statement in the suit, if not already filed” and asked the Single Judge “to commence the hearing of the suit on the re-opening of the Madras High Court after Dussehra holidays and then carry it on a day to day basis. No adjournment whatsoever ordinarily will be granted” and “the suit shall be finally disposed of on or before 30th November, 2009.” (para 11)
4. Sales on accounts pending trial. “The interim orders of this Court dated 08th June, 2009 and 31st August, 2009 are vacated and substituted by the following directions.” (para 12) “The respondent shall be entitled to sell its product but it shall maintain an accurate records/accounts of its all India and export sales. We are appointing a Receiver to whom the records of such sale shall be furnished every fortnight by the respondent” and “This direction will continue till the pendency of the suit.” (paras 12–13)
5. No observations on the merits. “We make it clear that we are not making any observations on the merits of the case. The learned Single Judge shall decide the suit without being influenced by this order or by any observations made in the impugned order of the Division Bench or in the order of the learned Single Judge granting temporary injunction in favour of the appellant herein.” (para 14)
6. Disposition. “The Appeal is disposed of accordingly. No costs.” (para 17) “In view of our judgment in Civil Appeal arising from S.L.P.(C) No.13933 of 2009, this appeal is also disposed of on the same terms. No costs.” (paras 17, 19)

What the court did not decide

“Hence, without going into the merits of the controversy” (para 11) the Court gave its directions, and made it “clear that we are not making any observations on the merits of the case.” (paras 11, 14)

Subsequent treatment

No later judicial treatment and no further appeal traced as of 17 October 2026.