2009 (9) TMI 878 - SC - Companies Law

interim injunction - Held that - Interim orders of this Court dated 08th June 2009 and 31st August 2009 are vacated and substituted by the following directions. 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 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.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Interlocutory injunction in patent infringement suit.
2. Delay in disposal of patent infringement suit.
3. Expedited resolution of trademark, copyright, and patent disputes.
4. Compliance with procedural rules in patent-related matters.
5. Appointment of a Receiver in patent infringement suit.
6. Directions for expeditious disposal of patent infringement suit.
7. Disposal of appeal based on previous judgment.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The case involves an appeal against an interim injunction granted by a Single Judge in a patent infringement suit. The Division Bench of the High Court allowed the appeal, leading to the current appeal before the Supreme Court.
2. The Supreme Court expressed dissatisfaction with the delay in the disposal of the patent infringement suit at the interlocutory stage, emphasizing the need for expeditious resolution of such matters. The suit was filed in 2007, and no written statement had been filed yet.
3. Citing a previous judgment, the Supreme Court highlighted the importance of expeditiously deciding trademark, copyright, and patent disputes to avoid prolonged litigation over temporary injunctions. The Court directed strict compliance with procedural rules to ensure timely resolution of such matters.
4. In line with the directive for expeditious disposal, the Court instructed the respondent-defendant to file a written statement promptly, with the suit to be heard on a day-to-day basis post-Dussehra holidays. The Court set a deadline of November 30, 2009, for the final disposal of the suit.
5. The Court appointed a Receiver to monitor the respondent's product sales and instructed the maintenance of accurate records, to be submitted fortnightly for verification. The Receiver's remuneration would be determined by the Chief Justice of the Madras High Court.
6. Emphasizing that the directions given were not a reflection on the case's merits, the Court directed the Single Judge to decide the suit impartially, without influence from the current order or previous injunctions.
7. The Secretary General of the Supreme Court was tasked with sending a copy of the judgment to the Registrar General of the Madras High Court for necessary action. The appeal was disposed of without costs based on previous judgments and directions.