Bajaj Auto Ltd vs Tvs Motor Company Ltd
- SCC(2009) 9 SCC 797
- Neutral2009 INSC 1140
- AIRAIR 2009 SC Supp 2591
- SCR[2009] 14 SCR 548
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
In matters relating to patents, trademarks and copyrights, the courts should strictly comply with the proviso to Order XVII Rule 1(2) C.P.C., requiring the hearing of suits to proceed on a day-to-day basis, with the final judgment to be given normally within four months from the date of filing of the suit, rather than allowing litigation to be prolonged through disputes over temporary injunctions at the interlocutory stage. Where an interim injunction has been granted in a patent infringement suit and the plaintiff has not yet secured a final adjudication of its rights, the defendant may be permitted to continue selling the impugned product on the condition that it maintains accurate records and accounts of all sales, which shall be submitted fortnightly to a court-appointed Receiver for verification and reporting to the court, as a balance between the parties' respective interests pending final judgment.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
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
Ne w Delhi:
September 16 th,2009
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free