Introduction: The case of Principal Commissioner of Customs & Anr. v. L’Oréal S.A. came before the Delhi High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, raising significant questions concerning jurisdictional overreach, the concept of a court becoming functus officio, and the limits of post-decree judicial proceedings. The matter pertained to intellectual property enforcement at the border and a broader conflict between administrative procedure and judicial process in post-decree scenarios.
Factual Background: L’Oréal S.A., a multinational cosmetic brand, filed a commercial suit for permanent injunction against M/s Oneness Enterprises (defendant no.1), as well as customs authorities—namely the Principal Commissioner of Customs (defendant no.2) and Commissioner of Customs (RI&I) (defendant no.3). The core of the suit revolved around the alleged import of counterfeit goods bearing the plaintiff’s registered trademarks “L’OREAL” and “MAYBELLINE” under Bill of Entry No. 9605576 dated 08.05.2017.L’Oréal sought extensive reliefs, including a decree for permanent injunction, confiscation and destruction of the impugned goods, rendition of accounts, disclosure of the entire chain of importation, and a restraint on asset disposal by the importer to secure any potential monetary relief.
Procedural Background:The trial was conducted before the District Judge (Commercial Court)-02, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi. The suit—CS(COMM) 128/2023—culminated in a judgment dated 19.10.2024, whereby a decree was passed in favour of L’Oréal. The decree directed that the suit was decreed with costs against the defendants. On the same date, however, the Trial Court passed a separate order whereby it continued post-decree proceedings and called for comments from customs counsel, issued show cause notices, and directed filing of an Action Taken Report (ATR).
This led to a new case being registered—MISC DJ/3623/2024. The proceedings in this miscellaneous case continued after the decree, with further orders being passed on 24.10.2024, 11.11.2024, and finally on 17.01.2025, the latter being the specific order challenged in the present petition under Article 227.
Issues Involved in the Case:The pivotal issue before the Delhi High Court was whether the Trial Court, after having passed a final judgment and decree, retained jurisdiction to continue post-decree proceedings by opening a new file (MISC DJ/3623/2024), issuing show cause notices, and calling for ATRs, despite no execution proceedings having been filed.The ancillary issue was whether a Court, once having become functus officio, could suo motu assume jurisdiction to monitor or pursue procedural compliance outside the statutory framework.
Submissions of Parties:The petitioners—the customs authorities—were represented by Mr. Aditya Singla, Standing Counsel for the CBIC. He submitted that once the suit had been decreed on 19.10.2024 and the file consigned to the record room, the Trial Court became functus officio and could not have opened a new file or passed subsequent orders. The reliefs sought in the original suit, particularly against customs authorities, had been adjudicated upon, and in the absence of an execution petition, the Trial Court lacked jurisdiction to initiate further proceedings.He emphasized that the initiation of proceedings in MISC DJ/3623/2024 amounted to judicial overreach and a violation of the principle that jurisdiction cannot be assumed by consent, waiver, or acquiescence.To support his contentions, he cited the following judgments:
1. Harshad Chiman Lal Modi v. DLF Universal Ltd., (2005) 7 SCC 791
The Supreme Court held that a Court lacking jurisdiction over the subject matter cannot assume it by consent or acquiescence. Any order passed by such a Court is a nullity and unenforceable.
2. Dr. Jagmittar Sain Bhagat v. Director, Health Services, (2013) 10 SCC 136
It was held that jurisdiction can only be conferred by statute and not assumed by a court suo motu. Even participation by a party does not validate proceedings held without jurisdiction.
Judgment and Authorities Cited – Contextual Discussion
In Harshad Chiman Lal Modi, the Apex Court emphasized the distinction between territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction and subject-matter jurisdiction. The case laid down that even if parties participated without objection, lack of subject-matter jurisdiction renders the judgment null. This principle was directly applicable in the present case, as the Trial Court, after passing the final decree, no longer retained jurisdiction over the matter.
Dr. Jagmittar Sain Bhagat further reinforced the principle that jurisdiction is a matter of legislative conferment, not procedural assumption. The judgment warned against the dangers of allowing judicial or administrative authorities to extend their reach beyond the scope of statutory empowerment.
Both judgments collectively clarified that the Trial Court, having decided the lis in CS(COMM) 128/2023 and having consigned the file to the record room, could not reopen proceedings under a miscellaneous head unless properly invoked through a fresh petition or execution proceeding.
Judicial Reasoning and Analysis: Delhi High Court, hearing the petition under Article 227, meticulously dissected the procedural irregularities. The Court observed that the Trial Court, having passed a decree and declared the suit closed, could not suo motu create and entertain MISC DJ/3623/2024. There existed no statutory provision enabling such an act absent a fresh proceeding.
The High Court reiterated the principle that jurisdiction must emanate from statute, not be fabricated by judicial initiative. Even though the customs authorities had participated in the proceedings before the Trial Court post-decree, that participation could not bestow legality upon inherently void proceedings.
Justice Banerjee strongly criticized the Trial Court’s conduct, labeling its actions as “patent perversity” and an “apparent error on the face of the record.” He further held that in such extraordinary circumstances, the High Court must exercise its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 to ensure adherence to law and prevent miscarriage of justice.
Final Decision:The Delhi High Court set aside the impugned order dated 17.01.2025 passed by the Trial Court in MISC DJ/3623/2024. Consequently, the entire proceedings initiated under that file, including all intermediate orders passed on 24.10.2024 and 11.11.2024, were also quashed. The High Court reaffirmed the principle that once a court becomes functus officio post-decree, it cannot continue to exercise jurisdiction unless statutorily enabled.
Law Settled in this Case:The judgment settles the law on two key points:First, once a civil court passes a final judgment and decree, it becomes functus officio and lacks the authority to entertain or continue any further proceedings in the same matter except through statutorily recognized post-decree mechanisms like execution petitions.Second, jurisdiction cannot be assumed or conferred by consent or participation. Any order passed by a court lacking jurisdiction over the subject matter, particularly after final adjudication, is null and void.This judgment reinforces judicial discipline and statutory fidelity, acting as a caution against judicial overreach and unwarranted continuation of proceedings outside the bounds of jurisdiction.
Disclaimer: The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.
Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi
No comments:
Post a Comment