MAHINDRA AND MAHINDRA LIMITED & ANR vs DIKSHA SHARMA PROPRIETOR OF MAHIDNRA PACKERS MOVERS & ORS.

Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Sections 151 and 152 - Order I Rule 10 - Order VII Rule 7 - Order XX - Order XX Rule 3 - Order LXVII - Doctrine of functus officio - Power of court post-judgment - A court, upon pronouncing judgment under Order XX, becomes functus officio and cannot entertain any application, including under Section 151, except for review or correction of clerical/arithmetical errors under Section 152 - The court cannot delegate to a Joint Registrar the power to implead new parties or extend injunctions after the judgment is pronounced. (Paras 18-24)

(B) Delhi High Court Intellectual Property Rights Division Rules, 2022 - Rule 7(viii) - Dispensation of oral evidence - Oral evidence may be dispensed with where compliance reports and affidavits confirm that the directions have been complied with. (Para 10)

Facts of the case:
The plaintiffs, part of a well-known group, filed a suit for permanent injunction, damages, and other reliefs against defendants using the plaintiffs' registered trademark 'MAHINDRA' in domain names and business names for packers and movers services. The court had granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction on 12.04.2023, directing the blocking/suspension of certain domain names and de-indexing of websites. Subsequently, the official defendants filed compliance reports and affidavits confirming compliance with the injunction directions. The plaintiffs sought a further direction permitting them to implead mirror/redirect/alphanumeric websites post-decree and to empower the Joint Registrar to extend the final judgment to such newly impleaded parties, relying on the judgments in UTV Software Communication Ltd. v. 1337X.To (2019) and Universal City Studios LLC v. Mixdrop Co. (2023).

Findings of Court:
The court held that once a final judgment under Order XX, CPC is pronounced, it becomes functus officio and cannot pass any further orders except for review under Order LXVII or correction of errors under Section 152, CPC. Exercising inherent power under Section 151 is also proscribed after final judgment. The court cannot delegate to a Joint Registrar the power to implead parties or extend injunctions post-judgment, as what cannot be done directly by the court cannot be done indirectly. The court expressed disagreement with the view in UTV Software and Universal City Studios on this issue, noting that those judgments did not consider the binding Supreme Court precedents on functus officio.

Issues: The main issues were whether the plaintiffs are entitled to implead mirror/redirect/alphanumeric websites post-decree without such prayer in the plaint; and whether the court can, under Section 151, CPC, empower the Joint Registrar to extend the final judgment to such websites after the court becomes functus officio.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that after passing a final judgment under Order XX, CPC, a civil court becomes functus officio and cannot entertain any application, including under Section 151, except for limited purposes of review or correction of clerical/arithmetical errors. No power can be conferred on a Joint Registrar to implead new parties or extend injunctions post-judgment, as the court itself lacks such power.

Result: The suit is decreed in terms of the interim orders already complied with, and the prayers for granting liberty to implead mirror/redirect/alphanumeric websites and to empower the Joint Registrar to extend the final judgment are rejected.

Legal Category Hierarchy

1. Suit for permanent injunction restraining trademark infringement and passing off of well-known mark 'MAHINDRA' by packers and movers. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 )

2. Plaintiffs sought liberty to implead mirror/redirect websites post-decree; court held functus officio cannot grant such relief. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 )

3. Suit decreed in terms of compliance; request for dynamic injunction post-decree rejected. (Para 31 , 32 , 33 )

4. Can a civil court grant a dynamic injunction to implead new parties after pronouncing final judgment?

No. Once a final judgment is pronounced under Order XX CPC, the court becomes functus officio and cannot entertain such relief except review or correction under Section 152. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 30 )

5. Can the Court delegate to the Joint Registrar the power to implead parties and extend injunctions post-decree?

No. The court itself is functus officio and cannot confer powers it does not possess; what cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 )

6. Is Section 151 of the CPC available for passing orders after the final judgment is pronounced?

No. Section 151 is intended for use during the pendency of a suit; after final judgment, the court's jurisdiction is limited to review and correction of clerical errors under Section 152. (Para 24 , 26 , 28 )

TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J.

1. The present suit has been instituted by the plaintiffs seeking the following prayers:-

“a) A decree of permanent injunction restraining the Defendants, their partners, proprietors, servants, agents, distributors, marketers, suppliers and all others in active concert or participation with them from operating its business, selling, offering for sale, advertising, providing its services directly or indirectly, under the trade mark/ trading name/ domain name using the Plaintiffs’ trade mark MAHINDRA and/or any other mark / name deceptively similar to the Plaintiffs’ registered trade marks MAHINDRA resulting in the infringement of the Plaintiffs’ rights in the well-known registered trade marks;

b) A decree of permanent injunction restraining the Defendants, their partners, proprietors, servants, agents, distributors, marketers, suppliers and all others in active concert or participation with them from operating its business, selling, offering for sale, advertising, providing its services directly or indirectly, under the trade mark/ trading name/ domain name using the Plaintiffs’ trade mark MAHINDRA and/or any other mark / name deceptively similar to the Plaintiffs’ registered trade marks MAHINDRA so as to suggest association between the Defendants and Plaintiffs resulting in the passing off of the Plaintiffs’ rights in the well-known trade mark MAHINDRA;

c) A decree of mandatory injunction against Defendant No. 5, 7 & 8 to block/suspend the Infringing domain names;

i. www.mahindrapackers.com ii. www.mahindrapackers.in iii. www.mahindrapackersmovers.com iv. www.mahindrapackersandmovers.com v. www.mahindrapackersandmovers.in vi. Any other domain name which contains Plaintiff’s registered trade mark MAHINDRA as may be included as per leave and directions of the present Hon’ble Court.

d) A decree of mandatory injunction against the Defendant No.9 to: i. Issue directions to DNR’s/Internet Service Licensee’s for blocking domain names as listed in prayer (c), and ii. Issue directions to DNR’s/Internet Service Licensee’s to intimate Plaintiffs wherever a domain name which contains Plaintiffs “MAHINDRA” trademark is registered;

e) A decree of mandatory injunction against the Defendant No.6 to delist any listings pertaining to the infringing domain names as listed in prayer (c);

f) A sum of ₹2,00,02,000/- as a decree of damages as valued for the purposes of this suit, or such amount as may be ascertained in the present suit to be paid by the Defendants, jointly or severally, on account of violation of the Plaintiffs' rights;

g) An order to the Defendants, its directors, group company, associates, assignee in business, licensees, franchises, dealers, proprietors, affiliates, distributors, agents etc. for rendition of accounts of the business generated, transactions carried out, sale revenues accrued and the profits made from its business under the trade mark/ trading name/ domain name violating the Plaintiffs’

rights in the well-known trade mark MAHINDRA;

h) An order as to the costs of the present proceedings;

i) Any further order(s) as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interests of justice.”

2. It is stated that plaintiff no.1 is the flagship company of Mahindra Group, founded in the year 1945, and claims to have been carrying on business under the corporate name and trading style “Mahindra” and “Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd.” since 1948. It also claims to hold registrations of the word marks “MAHINDRA” in Classes 12, 35, and 39, which are set out hereunder:

3. It is further stated that plaintiff no.2 is a part of the mobility service centres of the Mahindra Group and claims to be an integrated third-party logistics service provider that specializes in supply chain management and enterprise mobility solutions. It is the case of the plaintiffs that their mark has already been recognized as a well-known trademark in the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in Mahendra & Mahe

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 5121

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Tushar Rao Gedela, J
MAHINDRA AND MAHINDRA LIMITED & ANR – Appellant
Versus
DIKSHA SHARMA PROPRIETOR OF MAHIDNRA PACKERS MOVERS & ORS. – Respondent
CS(COMM) 209/2023

After judgment under Order XX, CPC, a court becomes functus officio and cannot entertain applications under Section 151 or delegate power to a Joint Registrar to implead new parties or extend injunctions post-decree.

Legal Category Hierarchy

Table of Contents

4. Can a civil court grant a dynamic injunction to implead new parties after pronouncing final judgment?

5. Can the Court delegate to the Joint Registrar the power to implead parties and extend injunctions post-decree?

6. Is Section 151 of the CPC available for passing orders after the final judgment is pronounced?

2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 5121

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHITushar Rao Gedela, JMAHINDRA AND MAHINDRA LIMITED & ANR – AppellantVersusDIKSHA SHARMA PROPRIETOR OF MAHIDNRA PACKERS MOVERS & ORS. – RespondentCS(COMM) 209/2023

After judgment under Order XX, CPC, a court becomes functus officio and cannot entertain applications under Section 151 or delegate power to a Joint Registrar to implead new parties or extend injunctions post-decree.

Legal Category Hierarchy

Table of Contents

4. Can a civil court grant a dynamic injunction to implead new parties after pronouncing final judgment?

5. Can the Court delegate to the Joint Registrar the power to implead parties and extend injunctions post-decree?

6. Is Section 151 of the CPC available for passing orders after the final judgment is pronounced?

Cases Referred (7)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Tushar Rao Gedela, J
MAHINDRA AND MAHINDRA LIMITED & ANR – Appellant
Versus
DIKSHA SHARMA PROPRIETOR OF MAHIDNRA PACKERS MOVERS & ORS. – Respondent
CS(COMM) 209/2023