Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
((From the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi)
L. NAGESWARA RAO, B.R. GAVAI, JJ.
Ajanta LLP – Appellant
Versus
Casio Keisanki Kabushiki Kaisha d/b/a Casio Computer Co. Ltd. – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 1052 of 2022, SLP (Civil) No. 9496 of 2020
Decided On : 04-02-2022
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Sections 152 and 153 read with Section 151 and Order 23 Rule 3 – Modification/alteration of decree – A judgment by consent is intended to stop litigation between parties just as much as a judgment resulting from a decision of Court at the end of a long drawn-out fight – A compromise decree creates an estoppel by judgment – A consent decree would not serve as an estoppel, where compromise was vitiated by fraud, misrepresentation, or mistake – Court in exercise of its inherent power may rectify consent decree to ensure that it is free from clerical or arithmetical errors so as to bring it in conformity with terms of compromise – Court can entertain an Application under Section 151 of CPC for alterations/modification of consent decree if same is vitiated by fraud, misrepresentation, or misunderstanding – High Court dismissed Application by refusing to entertain Application on the ground that it was filed under Section 152 of the CPC – There is no allegation either of fraud or misrepresentation on part of Respondent – Even assuming there is a mistake, a consent decree cannot be modified/ altered unless mistake is a patent or obvious mistake – Judgment of High Court upheld. (Paras 12, 13 and 14)
Facts of the case:
Aggrieved by the judgment dated 22.11.2019 of the High Court of Delhi, dismissing the application filed by Appellant under Sections 152 and 153 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking modification of the judgment dated 03.07.2019, Appellant is before this Court. Question that arises for consideration is whether Appellant has made out a case for modification/ alteration of decree by his application being treated to be one under Rule 3 of Order 23 of CPC.
Findings of Court:
Correspondence between the advocates for the parties who are experts in law would show that there is no ambiguity or lack of clarity giving rise to any misunderstanding. Even assuming there is a mistake, a consent decree cannot be modified/ altered unless mistake is a patent or obvious mistake. Or else, there is a danger of every consent decree being sought to be altered on the ground of mistake/ misunderstanding by a party to the consent decree.
Result : Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
L. NAGESWARA RAO, J.
Leave granted.
1. Aggrieved by the judgment dated 22.11.2019 of the High Court of Delhi, dismissing the application filed by the Appellant under Sections 152 and 153 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short “the CPC”) seeking modification of the judgment dated 03.07.2019, the Appellant is before this Court.
2. The Respondent filed a suit against the Appellant for the following reliefs:
(B) The Defendants, their directors, agents, sellers, retailers, distributors, suppliers, franchisees, representatives, employees, affiliates and assigns be directed by a decree of mandatory injunction directing that they at their own expense:
(i) Recall all the impugned products and/or any marketing, promotional and advertising materials that bear or incorporate the impugned design or any other articles/goods/products which bears a design which is a fraudulent or an imitation of the Plaintiff’s Registered Designs, which has been manufactured and/or sold, distributed, displayed or advertised or promoted in the market, including on online retail/e-commerce websites.
(ii) Deliver to the Plaintiff for destruction all the materials including impugned products and/or any marketing, promotional and advertising materials that bear or incorporate the impugned design or any other articles/goods/products which bears a design which is a fraudulent or an imitation of the Plaintiff’s Registered Designs.
(iii) Make full and fair disclosure to the Plaintiff any design application or registration for the impugned design and/or any other design which is a fraudulent or an imitation of the Plaintiff’s Registered Designs and withdraw such applications and/or surrender such registrations under intimation to the Plaintiff.
(iv) Make a full and fair disclosure to the Plaintiff of the full details such as names and addresses of the parties involved in the manufacturing, marketing, distributing and selling the impugned products.
(C) The Defendant be called upon to allow inspection of their accounts to assist in ascertaining the amount of profits made by them and/or damages including exemplary and penal damages suffered by the Plaintiff on account of the Defendants’ offending activities and a decree is passed in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant for the amount found due.
(D) Cost of the suit be awarded to the Plaintiff.
(E) Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court thinks fit and proper in the circumstances of the case is allowed in favor of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant.”
3. According to the Plaintiff, the Defendant lifted each and every novel element of the original design, shape and configuration for its scientific/electronic calculator ORPAT FX-991ES PLUS. The Respondent applied for a design registration for its electronic calculator namely CASIO FX-991ES PLUS and it was introduced in India in October, 2011. Having knowledge about the sale of the scientific calculator by the Appellant under the name ORPAT FX-991ES PLUS, the Respondent filed a civil suit for the reliefs referred to above. The High Court of Delhi passed an ex-parte ad-interim order of stay on 28.11.2018. Thereafter, the parties were
(1) A compromise decree creates an estoppel by judgment – A consent decree would not serve as an estoppel, where compromise was vitiated by fraud, misrepresentation, or mistake.(2) Court in exercise ....
An appeal against a consent decree is barred under Section 96(3) of the CPC; aggrieved parties must contest the decree's validity in the same court that issued it.
The court upheld the compromise order, finding no evidence of coercion, and directed the respondent to execute a sale deed for the entire property after regularisation.
A party aggrieved by a compromise decree has a right to challenge the compromise decree by way of an appeal or to approach the same court which passed such decree by way of an appropriate application....
Suit against compromise decree – If compromise decree is tainted by fraud, misrepresentation or mistake, Court under inherent powers conferred under Section 151 CPC may rectify decree for alternation....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
