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 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 “FX991ES 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 mistake. Or else, there is a danger of every consent decree being sought to be altered on the ground of mistake/ misunderstanding by a party to the consent decree. [Para 13][320-F-G; 321-A-E] Shankar Sitaram Sontakke & Anr. v. Balkrishna Sitaram Sontakke & Ors. AIR 1954 SC 352 : [1955] SCR 99; Byram Pestonji Gariwala v. Union Bank of India & Ors. (1992) 1 SCC 31 : [1991] 1 Suppl. SCR 187; Banwari Lal v. Chando Devi (Smt.) (through LRs.) & Anr. (1993)
1 SCC 581 : [1992] 3 Suppl. SCR 524; Compack
Enterprises India Pvt. Ltd. v. Beant Singh (2021) 3 SCC 702; Sourendra Nath Mitra & Ors. v. Srimati Tarubala Dasi AIR 1930 PC 158 – referred to.
Sourendra Nath Mitra & Ors. v. Srimati Tarubala Dasi AIR 1930 PC 158 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.