1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL No. 6309  of 2009    (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.13933 of 2009)

Bajaj Auto Limited ..Appellant

versus

TVS Motor Company Limited ..Respondent

J U D G M E N T

MARKANDEY KATJU, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. 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.

2

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  

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  

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 the Madras High Court which allowed the appeal  

by the impugned order 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 Single Judge of the Madras High Court.  We are unhappy  

that  the  matter  has  been  pending  in  the  High  Court  at  the

3

interlocutory stage for such a long time as the suit was filed  

in December, 2007 and yet even written statement has not been  

filed.   

8. Recently,  we  have  held  in  Special  Leave  Petition(C)  

No.21594 of 2009 decided on 07th September, 2009 in the case of  

M/s.  Shree  Vardhman  Rice  &  Gen  Mills vs.  M/s  Amar  Singh  

Chawalwala as follows:

“...Without  going  into  the  merits  of  the  controversy,  we  are  of  the  opinion  that  the  matters  relating  to  trademarks,  copyrights  and  patents  should  be  finally  decided  very  expeditiously  by  the  Trial  Court  instead  of  merely granting or refusing to grant injunction.  Experience  shows  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-day until all  the witnesses in attendance have been examined,  unless  the  Court  finds  that,  for  exceptional  reasons to be recorded by it the adjournment of  the  hearing  beyond  the  following  day  is  necessary. The Court should also observe clauses  (b) to (e) of the said proviso.

4

In  our  opinion,  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.”

9. As  has  been  observed  by  us  in  the  aforesaid  case,  

experience has shown that in our country, 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, and hence we had passed the  

above quoted order in the above-mentioned case to serve the ends  

of justice.  We direct that the directions in the aforesaid order  

be  carried  out  by  all  courts  and  tribunals  in  this  country  

punctually and faithfully.

10. 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

5

interlocutory  stage,  the  suit  itself  should  be  disposed  of  

finally at a very early date.

11. 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, on or before the last date for  

closing of the Madras High Court for Dussehra holidays. We would  

request  the  learned  Single  Judge  who  is  trying  the  suit  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.

12. The interim orders of this Court dated 08th June, 2009 and  

31st August, 2009 are vacated and substituted by the following  

directions.

13. 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

6

and the same shall be signed and authenticated by a responsible  

officer of the respondent.  A copy of the same shall be given to  

the appellant also.  We are requesting the Hon'ble the Chief  

Justice of the Madras High Court to forthwith nominate a Receiver  

in the matter to whom the sale records/accounts will be submitted  

by the respondent fortnightly, and the Receiver will verify the  

said sale records/accounts and thereafter submit his  Report to  

the learned Bench of Madras High Court where the suit is pending.  

A  copy  of  the  same  will  be  sent  to  the  parties  also.  This  

direction will continue till the pendency of the suit.  The  

remuneration of the Receiver will be fixed by the Hon'ble Chief  

Justice.  

14. 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.

7

15. The Secretary General of this Court is directed to send a  

copy of this judgment forthwith to the Registrar General of the  

Madras High Court who shall place the same before Hon'ble the  

Chief Justice for obtaining the appropriate directions.   

16. Copy of this order be given to the parties today itself.

17. The Appeal is disposed of accordingly.  No costs.

Civil Appeal No.6310 of 2009  @ S.L.P.(C) No.14039 of 2009

18. Leave granted.

19. 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.

............................J. [MARKANDEY KATJU]

............................J. [ASOK KUMAR GANGULY]

8

New  Delhi: September 16th, 2009