#interlocutory injunction

The Division Bench affirmed the Single Judge’s finding that ‘NOVIETS’ is deceptively similar to the well-known mark ‘NOVARTIS’, considering visual and phonetic resemblance in the pharmaceutical sector. The court reiterated that appellate interference with interim injunctions is warranted only where the order is perverse or ignores settled principles, dismissing the appeal filed by Noviets Pharma.

The Delhi High Court dismissed the review petition, holding that an interlocutory injunction in a separate trademark dispute does not disqualify a bidder and that a change in shareholding does not erase the bidder’s earlier project experience required under the tender. This clarifies that eligibility is judged on substantive qualifications, not on unrelated litigation or post-tender ownership changes, impacting all participants in government procurements.

A Division Bench may not set aside a trial judge’s grant of an interim injunction unless the discretion was exercised arbitrarily or perversely. The Supreme Court said appellate courts can intervene only on a ground of abuse of discretion, leaving the interim relief intact.

The Karnataka High Court held that once a commercial court reserves orders on an interlocutory application, appellate courts cannot intervene with interim relief, even if irreparable harm is alleged. This ruling reinforces judicial hierarchy and prevents bypassing of procedural timelines in commercial disputes, impacting litigants seeking urgent relief during reserved judgments.

Bombay High Court rules that condominium associations seeking interim relief for unpaid maintenance or property tax must establish both the exact quantum owed and a prima facie case. Mere allegations without documentary proof are insufficient, setting a higher evidentiary threshold for monetary claims in housing disputes.

The Delhi High Court ruled that when a patent is days from expiry, courts need not conduct full validity trials - a credible prima facie showing of obviousness under Section 64(1)(f) is sufficient to deny interim relief. This sets a precedent for expediting patent disputes where public access to medicines hinges on timely generic entry, shifting the burden to patentees to demonstrate robust validity early.