Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from a civil suit instituted by Lifestyle Equities C.V. and anor, claiming to be the proprietor of the Beverly Hills Polo Club trademark, against Amazon Technologies Inc. for alleged infringement and passing off. The suit, filed in the Delhi High Court as Civil Suit (COMM) No. 443 of 2020, sought a permanent injunction, damages of Rs. 2,00,05,000, delivery up of infringing materials, and other reliefs. The defendant initially did not participate and was proceeded ex parte on 20.04.2022. A money decree for the claimed damages was passed against the defendant on 25.02.2025 by a learned Single Judge. The remaining defendants were either decreed against or removed. The judgment debtor (Amazon Technologies Inc.) filed an appeal and sought a stay of execution of the money decree under Order XLI Rule 5(1) and (3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. By order dated 01.07.2025 (as mentioned in the judgment, though likely intended as 2025), the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court allowed the application and stayed the operation of the money decree without insisting on any deposit of the decretal amount. Aggrieved by the unconditional stay, the decree holders filed a special leave petition before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, after hearing senior counsel for both sides, found no good reason to interfere with the High Court’s order and dismissed the petition on 24.09.2025, reserving its reasons in a separate order. The apex court thus upheld the High Court’s discretion in granting unconditional stay, effectively leaving the ex parte money decree unenforceable pending the appeal.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Stay of Execution of Money Decree - Order XLI Rule 5(1) and (3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Unconditional Stay - The Delhi High Court Division Bench allowed an application under Order XLI Rule 5 CPC and stayed execution of a money decree passed in a trademark infringement suit without requiring the judgment debtor to deposit the decretal amount - The Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petition against this order, holding that there was no good reason to interfere with the High Court’s exercise of discretion - The Court observed that the High Court had examined relevant aspects and found sufficient cause for granting unconditional stay (Paras 1-2).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court was justified in granting unconditional stay of the money decree under Order XLI Rule 5 CPC without requiring any deposit.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petition, finding no good reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order of the High Court. Consequently, the High Court’s order granting unconditional stay of the money decree without deposit was upheld.
Law Points
- Order XLI Rule 5 CPC
- unconditional stay
- sufficient cause
- no interference with High Court's discretion
Case Details
2025 LawText (SC) (10) 105
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 19767 of 2025
Mukul Rohatgi, Gaurav Pachnanda, Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Arvind Nigam
Lifestyle Equities C.V. & Anr.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil suit for permanent injunction and damages for trademark infringement and passing off, followed by appeal and application for stay of execution of money decree.
Remedy Sought
The petitioners (original plaintiffs/decree holders) sought to set aside the High Court’s order granting unconditional stay of the money decree without deposit and to secure the decretal amount.
Filing Reason
The High Court granted stay of execution of the money decree passed in the infringement suit without requiring the judgment debtor to deposit any amount, which the decree holders challenged as unjustified.
Previous Decisions
The defendant was proceeded ex parte on 20.04.2022. A decree was passed against defendant No. 2 for Rs. 4,78,484 on 02.03.2023. The money decree against the respondent (original defendant) was passed on 25.02.2025 by a learned Single Judge. The Division Bench of the High Court on 01.07.2025 allowed the application under Order XLI Rule 5 CPC and stayed the execution unconditionally.
Issues
Whether the High Court was justified in granting an unconditional stay of the money decree under Order XLI Rule 5 CPC without requiring any deposit.
Judgment Excerpts
the application filed by the respondent herein ... under Order XLI Rule 5(1) and Rule 5 (3) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 ... came to be allowed, and thereby the Court stayed the operation of the judgment and money decree ... without insisting for the deposit of the decretal amount.
The plaintiffs instituted Civil Suit (COMM) No. 443 of 2020 in the Delhi High Court, inter alia, seeking permanent injunction and damages against the defendant for the alleged infringement of their registered trademark BHPC.
We are of the view that there is no good reason for us to interfere with the impugned Judgment and Order passed by the High Court.
Procedural History
The plaintiffs filed Civil Suit (COMM) No. 443 of 2020 in the Delhi High Court. On 20.04.2022, the defendant (respondent herein) was proceeded ex parte. The suit was decreed against defendant No. 2 for Rs. 4,78,484 on 02.03.2023. A money decree for Rs. 2,00,05,000 was passed against the respondent on 25.02.2025. The respondent filed an application under Order XLI Rule 5 CPC, which was allowed by the Division Bench of the High Court on 01.07.2025, staying the execution unconditionally. The petitioners filed a special leave petition before the Supreme Court, which was heard and dismissed on 24.09.2025.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order XLI Rule 5(1), Order XLI Rule 5(3), Order XLI Rule 3
- Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: Section 36
