The lis

1. By judgment dated 20 February 2025, a learned Single Judge of this Court disposed of CS (Comm) 423/2016¹, CS (Comm) 499/2018² and CS (Comm) 519/2018³.

2. The aforesaid suits were instituted by Koninklijke Philips N.V.⁴ against the appellants in the present appeals, alleging that the appellants had infringed Indian Patent IN 218255⁵, of which Philips was the proprietor, pertaining to a “Method of Converting Information Words to a Modulated Signal”. The suits therefore, sought decrees of permanent injunction, restraining the appellants from infringing the suit patent and also claimed damages and costs.

3. During the currency of the suits, the suit patent expired by efflux of time. The prayers for injunction, therefore, were rendered infructuous.

4. The impugned judgment, therefore, decrees the suits only to the extent of damages and costs. Damages of ₹ 6,22,50,000/-, along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of payment of the damages awarded, and additional damages of ₹ 1,00,00,000/- have been awarded against the appellants in RFA (OS) (Comm) 8/2025, damages of ₹ 1,61,85,000/- along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of payment of the damages awarded and additional damages of ₹ 1,00,00,000/- have been awarded against the appellants in RFA (OS) (Comm) 13/2025, and damages of ₹ 12,43,25,700/- along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of payment of the damages awarded and with additional damages of ₹ 1,00,00,000/- have been awarded against the appellants in RFA (OS) (Comm) 14/2025.

5. Along with the present appeals, the appellants have filed CM Appl 25908/2025 [in RFA (OS) (Comm) 8/2025], CM Appl 31118/2025 [in RFA (OS) (Comm) 13/2025] and CM Appl 31125/2025 [in RFA (OS) (Comm) 14/2025], under Order XLI Rule 5⁶ of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908⁷, have been filed along with appeals, seeking stay of execution of the impugned judgment and decree.

6. We have heard Mr. J. Sai Deepak, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants in RFA (OS) (Comm) 8/2025 and RFA (OS) (Comm) 12/2025, Mr. Kanhaiya Singhal, learned Counsel for the appellants in RFA (OS) (Comm) 13/2025 and RFA (OS) (Comm) 14/2025 and Mr. Dayan Krishnan, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents in the stay applications filed with the appeals, and have reserved orders thereon.

7. This judgment adjudicates the said stay applications.

Law relating to Order XLI Rule 5 of the CPC – The decision in Lifestyle Equities

8.1 The principles relating to adjudication of applications under Order XLI Rule 5 of the CPC stand recently crystallized by the Supreme Court in its judgment in Lifestyle Equities C.V. v. Amazon Technologies Inc⁸.

8.2 The Supreme Court has, in the said judgment, held that the principles that govern grant of stay under Order XLI Rule 5 of the CPC are the same, whether the decree under challenge is, or is not, a money decree. Nonetheless, in respect of money decrees, the Supreme Court has taken note of the entire preceding legal position, as contained in Sihor Nagar Palika Bureau v. Bhabhlubhai Virabhai & Co.⁹, Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd. v. Federal Motors (P) Ltd.¹⁰ and Malwa Strips Pvt. Ltd v. Jyoti Ltd¹¹, to hold that while, ordinarily, money decrees are not to be stayed in appeal, stay may be granted in exceptional cases. The principle that stay of a money decree is not completely foreclosed under Order XLI Rule 5 of the CPC was specifically enunciated in Malwa Strips and, after noting the relevant passages from the said decision, the Supreme Court has, in para 70 of Lifestyle Equities, observed as under:

“70. Thus, in Malwa Strips (supra), this Court unequivocally observed that although the word “shall” has been used in Order XLI Rule 5 CPC, yet the same is not mandatory in character. The Court further observed that the purpose for which such a provision has been inserted, should be