After the Supreme Court interim order in June 2009 issued in the Special Leave Petition filed by Bajaj Auto, where TVS Motors had given an undertaking that it shall not allow any finished product to leave the warehouse till the final disposal of the case, the appeal was heard lately by the Supreme Court. The court allowed TVS to sell its vehicle named “Flame”, while scrupulously maintaining accounts for its domestic as well as international sales. It has also asked Madras High Court to appoint a receiver in this connection, to whom the records would be furnished every fortnight, with a copy to the appellant.

The suit is still pending with the Single Judge of the Madras High Court at the interlocutory stage, upon which the Supreme Court expressed concern, since it was filed in December 2007. The court expected the Single Judge to decide the matter earnestly and timely without being influenced by this order or any other order of the Division Bench. Upon the delay in granting relief to the parties in intellectual property matters, the Supreme Court observed, “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.” The order of the Supreme Court in Shree Vardhman Rice v. Amar Singh Chawalwala, was also cited, which said, “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.” The 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. It was stressed that the courts should also observe clauses (b) to (e) of the said proviso.

It was also observed in the above case that “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.”

The Court further ordered that the directions in the aforesaid order be carried out by all courts and tribunals in the country faithfully and the present suit be finally disposed of on or before November 30th, 2009.