LexLIFESTYLE EQUITIES C.V. & ANR. versus AMAZON TECHNOLOGIES INC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 10 S.C.R. 463 : 2025 INSC 1190 Lifestyle Equities C.V. & Anr. v. Amazon Technologies INC. (Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 19767 of 2025) 07 October 2025 [J.B. Pardiwala* and K.V. Viswanathan, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Whether the Division Bench of the High Court committed any error in passing the impugned judgment and order by which the application filed by the respondent herein (judgment debtor-original defendant) under Order XLI Rule 5(1) and Rule 5(3), Civil Procedure Code, 1908, respectively came to be allowed and thereby the Court granted stay of the execution of the money decree suffered by the respondent without insisting for the deposit of the decretal amount. Headnotes† Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or.XLI, r.5 – Stay by Appellate Court – Interpretation: Held: Although, Or.XLI r. 5 uses the word “shall”, yet a combined reading of the sum and substance of rr.1(3) and 5(5) would reveal, that for the grant of stay of execution, it is not mandatory for the appellate court to impose a condition for deposit of the amount in dispute – Appellate court, for the grant of stay of execution, has a discretion to impose a condition of deposit of the amount depending on the facts and circumstances of each case – A deposit is not a condition precedent for an order of stay of execution of the decree by the appellate court – The only guiding factor and statutory mandate, for the grant of such stay of execution as indicated in r.5, is the existence of “sufficient cause” in favour of the appellant, on the availability of which the appellate court would be inclined to pass an order of stay – For the grant of benefit of an unconditional stay of execution of a decree, an exceptional case has to be made out before the appellate court – This discretion of the appellate court to grant an unconditional stay of execution of decree must not be exercised arbitrarily – It must be exercised sparingly and only if an exceptional case is made out for such stay in view of * Author 464 [2025] 10 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports the peculiar facts and attending circumstances of the case before it – In the present case, the High Court looked into various relevant aspects for the purpose of granting benefit of unconditional stay of execution of money decree viz., that the suit had proceeded in the absence of the respondent herein; there were no pleadings of infringement against the respondent herein; no pleadings for the purpose of claiming Rs. 3,36,02,87,000/- towards damages; Single Judge had recorded no findings as regards the role of the respondent herein in the alleged infringement – No error committed by Division Bench in passing the impugned judgment, upheld. [Paras 134 VI-VIII, 125-129] Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or.XLI, r.5 – “exceptional case” for granting benefit of unconditional stay of the execution of money decree: Held: A case within the purview of “exceptional case” for the purpose of granting benefit of unconditional stay of the execution of money decree by the appellate court would be, if the money decree in question- (i) is egregiously perverse; (ii) is riddled with patent illegalities; (iii) is facially untenable; and/or (iv) such other exceptional causes similar in nature. [Paras 134, 82-87] Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or.XLI – Grant of benefit of stay of execution of a decree by an appellate court – Law w.r.t, summarized. [Para 134] Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or.XLI, r.5: Held: For the purpose of the grant or refusal of stay of execution of the decree under r.5 of Or.XLI, it is immaterial whether the decree is a money decree or any other decree – Or.XLI, r.5 makes no distinction between a money decree and other decrees, and the said provision applies with full rigour in both instances – Yet as a rule of prudence and established practice evolved over a period of time, no stay of execution of a money decree should be granted, except on the condition that the decretal amount be deposited in the court – However, such condition for deposit is not mandatory and non-prescription thereof does not operate as a bar to staying the execution of a money decree – Further, there is no provision u/Or.XLI, r.5 imposing a mandate to deposit cash security as the only mode of security for execution of the decree – Security, for the purpose of the said provision, can be in the shape of property, [2025] 10 S.C.R. 465 Lifestyle Equities C.V. & Anr. v.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.