The interim injunction was issued when TVS Motor approached the Court with the allegation.. According to reports, Bajaj’s dealers have issued advertisement for its motorcycle Bajaj CT100, by comparing the fuel efficiency of TVS XL 100.

"A prima facie case is made out by the applicant (TVS Motor)," said the interim order issued by Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana, commenting that though the statement by the respondents (Bajaj Auto and others) puffing their own product is not questionable, disparaging statement of the applicant would be certainly actionable. However, the same can be dealt with in detail, after the respondents filed their detailed counter, she said.

"In the result, there will an order of interim injunction restraining the respondents from continuing the advertisement which disparages the applicant's product TVS Excel 100 by comparing the fuel efficiency of the applicant's product with the respondents' product, for a period of two weeks from today," said an order issued on July 1, 2016.

TVS Motor, in its Original Application, has produced the hand bills and the affidavits from their own dealers and also the copies of the campaign and arch proof, wherein its products and that of the respondents are compared. The advertisement goes to say that the fuel efficiency of the applicant product is very low.

The point of difference in the two products, according to the advertisement is that the fuel efficiency of the applicant product is less than 50 per cent of Bajaj Auto's product. The respondents cannot obviously disparage the product of the applicant, said the order.

Senior counsel appearing for TVS Motor alleged that the respondents have made a false statement, which are calculated to cause financial damages and it is made with an intent to cause injury. The statement made in the advertisement is malicious and it is likely to cause damage to the applicant, said the counsel.

Though the respondents had taken notice on June 27 and undertook to file counter, they have not filed their counter affidavit till the date of the interim injunction, said the order.