CHENNAI: In a setback to Bajaj Auto, the Madras High Court on Tuesday, has dismissed the company’s appeal seeking a stay on a recent order that

allowed its arch-rival TVS Motor to manufacture and market the controversial bike Flame, in its original form. But, Bajaj Auto is not backing down and plans to slug it out by taking TVS to the Supreme Court.

The division bench, comprising Mr justice V Dhanapalan and Mr justice MM Sundresh, declined to grant a stay of order and adjourned the application for stay by two weeks.

Meanwhile, the order granted last week by the division bench, comprising Mr justice Mukhopadhyay and Mr justice Ibrahim Kalifulla continues to be operational.

While senior counsel AL Somayaji and PS Raman appeared for TVS Motor, Bajaj auto was represented by A A Mohan of Mohan Associates’ and senior counsel Nalini Chidambaram.

After more than a year of legal battle, the court ruled last week that TVS Motor can manufacture and market 125-cc Flame in its original form. A two-member bench lifted an interim injunction that prevented TVS from using an engine with two spark plugs and three valves. Simultaneously, the application filed by TVS Motor against Bajaj from interfering in the manufacturing and marketing of 125-cc Flame with 3 valves and 2 spark plugs was allowed, with the result that TVS Motor can manufacture and market 125-cc Flame.

But Bajaj sought a stay on this order, that the injunction should be extended for another two weeks. With its plea dismissed, the next step for Bajaj is to file an appeal at the Supreme Court. Its lawyers said this will be done in the next few weeks.

TVS Motor was forced to re-launch its 125-cc Flame motorcycle last year, in the wake of an engine technology patent row with Bajaj Auto. The re-launched version came with a single spark plug, replacing the twin spark plug that triggered the legal tussle between the companies.

But the division bench ruled last week that the product manufactured by TVS has a distinctive feature, which is different from Bajaj’s patent. So, the bench set aside the order of the single judge and discontinued the injunction granted by him.