AJANTA LLP versus CASIO KEISANKI KABUSHIKI KAISHA D/B/A CASIO COMPUTER CO. LTD.

Citation: [2022] 16 S.C.R. 308 · Decided: 04-02-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: L. NAGESWARA RAO · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
308
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 16 S.C.R.
AJANTA LLP
v.
CASIO KEISANKI KABUSHIKI KAISHA D/B/A CASIO
COMPUTER CO. LTD.
(Civil Appeal Nos 1052 of 2022)
FEBRUARY 04, 2022
[L. NAGESWARA RAO AND B. R. GAVAI, JJ.]
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – ss. 152 and 153 r/w. s.151 –
Application filed for correction/ rectification/ amendment of the
judgment – Respondent applied for a design registration for its
electronic calculator namely ‘CASIO FX991ES PLUS’ – 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 restraining appellant by permanent injuction from using
impugned product ‘ORPAT FX-991ES PLUS’ – High Court passed
ex-parte ad-interim order of stay – Thereafter, parties were referred
to mediation – Settlement arrived – Settlement agreement entered
into – Accordingly, suit was decreed on 03.07.2019 in terms of the
settlement agreement – Subsequently, an application was filed by
the appellant u/ss. 152 and 153 r/w. s. 151 of the CPC for correction/
rectification/ amendment of the judgment dated 03.07.2019 –
Appellant stated in the said application that the Settlement Agreement
pertains only to trademark “FX-991ES PLUS’/ ‘FX-991" – However,
there was an inadvertent typographical error of the trademark in
the Settlement Agreement as “FX-991ES PLUS/FX/991” –
Application dismissed by the High Court – On appeal, held: The
Court can entertain an application u/s. 151 of the CPC for
alterations/ modification of the consent decree if the same is vitiated
by fraud, misrepresentation, or misunderstanding – In the instant
case, a close scrutiny of the correspondence between the parties
would show that the Settlement Agreement was arrived at after
detailed consultation and deliberations – The final Settlement
Agreement was approved by the mediator – High Court applied its
mind and passed a decree in terms of the Settlement – There is no
allegation either of fraud or misrepresentation on the part of the
respondent – Unable to agree with the appellant that there was a
[2022] 16 S.C.R. 308
308
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
309
mistake committed while entering into a settlement agreement due
to misunderstanding – Judgment of the High Court upheld.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. A consent decree would not serve as an estoppel,
where the compromise was vitiated by fraud, misrepresentation,
or mistake. The Court in exercise of its inherent power may rectify
the consent decree to ensure that it is free from clerical or
arithmetical errors so as to bring it in conformity with the terms
of the compromise. Undoubtedly, the Court can entertain an
Application under Section 151 of the CPC for alterations/
modification of the consent decree if the same is vitiated by fraud,
misrepresentation, or misunderstanding. The misunderstanding
as projected by the Appellant between parties relates to use of
“FX” or “991” as separate marks in the Settlement Agreement.
The understanding between the parties was with respect to “FX-
991ES PLUS” as a whole and not with reference to “FX”. A close
scrutiny of the correspondence between the parties would show
that the Settlement Agreement was arrived at after detailed
consultation and deliberations. Thereafter, the parties were
communicating with each other and they took six months to arrive
at a settlement. The final Settlement Agreement was approved
by the mediator. The High Court applied its mind and passed a
decree in terms of the Settlement Agreement dated 16.05.2019.
Though, the High Court dismissed the Application by refusing to
entertain the Application on the ground that it was filed under
Section 152 of the CPC, this Court has considered the submissions
of the parties to examine whether the Appellant has made out a
case for modification of the decree by treating the Application as
one under the proviso to Order 23 Rule 3 read with Section 151
of the CPC. There is no allegation either of fraud or
misrepresentation on the part of the Respondent. This Court is
unable to agree with the Appellant that there was a mistake
committed while entering into a settlement agreement due to
misunderstanding. 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 the mistake is a patent or obvious
AJANTA LLP v. CASIO KE

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.