Holding

In patent (and trademark/copyright) matters, the proviso (a) to Order XVII Rule 1(2) CPC must be strictly complied with, mandating day‑to‑day hearing and disposal of the suit within four months.

Summary

Bajaj Auto Ltd filed a suit in the Madras High Court alleging infringement of its Patent No. 195904 against TVS Motor Company Ltd. The trial judge granted an interim injunction, which was later set aside by the Division Bench on appeal. The suit remained pending without a written statement from the defendant. The Supreme Court, recalling its earlier decision in Shree Vardhman Rice & General Mills v. Amar Singh Chawalwal, held that in patent, trademark and copyright matters the proviso (a) to Order XVII Rule 1(2) of the CPC must be strictly observed, requiring day‑to‑day hearing and disposal within four months. It directed the defendant to file its written statement, ordered the trial court to conduct daily hearings, set a final disposal date of 30 November 2009, and appointed a receiver to monitor the defendant’s sales records. The Court vacated its earlier interim orders and disposed of the appeal without costs.

Issues considered

Whether the proviso (a) to Order XVII Rule 1(2) of the CPC is mandatory in patent infringement suits.
Whether the trial court must conduct day‑to‑day hearings and dispose of the suit within a stipulated period.
Appropriate interim relief and procedural directions pending final disposal of the suit.

Legislation cited

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908s. Order XVII Rule 1(2) proviso (a)

Subjects

Patent infringementInterim injunctionCPC Order XVII Rule 1(2)Day‑to‑day hearingSpeedy trialReceiver appointmentCivil procedure

Judgment

[2009] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 548
...,
)

A BAJAJ AUTO LIMITED
v. "'
TVS MOTOR COMPANY LTD.
(Civil Appeal No. 6309 of 2009)
SEPTEMBER 16, 2009
B
[MARKANDEY KATJU 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:
+ ' -1
After commencement of hearing of suits in matters relating )

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 KATJU, 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
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:
E "...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
F
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.
G
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
H
.._ - -....._ .
- --~

BAJAJ AUTO LIMITED v. TVS MOTOR COMPANY 'L:fo: . 551
[MARKANDEY KATJU, J.]

that, for exceptional reasons to be recorded by it the A
adJournment of· the hea~ing beyond the following day is
necessary. The Court should also observe clauses (b) to
(e) of the said proviso.

In our opinion, in matters relating to trademarks, copyright B
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 c
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 D
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 E'
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 F
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.

11. Hence, without going into the merits of the controversy, G
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 H
552 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A Madras High Court after Dussehra holidays and then carry it I:

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.

B 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
c 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 the same shall be signed and authenticated
by a responsible officer of the respondent. A copy of the same
D 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
E 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.
F
14. We make it clear that we a're 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
G the Division Bench or in the order of the learned Single Judge ~

granting temporary injunction in favour of the appellant herein.

15. The Secretary General of this Court is directed to send
a copy of this judgment forthwith to the Registrar General of the
H Madras High Court who shall place the same before Hon'ble
BAJAJ AUTO LIMITED v. TVS MOTOR COMPANY LTD. 553
[MAR KAN DEY KATJU, J.]

the Chief Justice for obtaining the appropriate directions. A

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

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

Civil Appeal No.631 O of 2009 B

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

18. Leave granted.
c
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.

R.P. Appeal disposed of.
D