Flipkart India Private Limited Vs Marc Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.:24.04.2026:FAO-IPD 46 of 2021:DHC:Hon'ble Justice Shri Tejas Karia
Brief Facts
The present order arises out of an application filed by the appellant (Flipkart India Pvt. Ltd.) under Sections 151 and 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking clarification/modification of a judgment dated 10.04.2026. The appellant contended that the Court had incorrectly recorded its submission regarding the grant of time—asserting that the request was for time to avail legal remedies, and not merely for compliance with the interim injunction.
The respondent (Marc Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.) opposed the application, submitting that the judgment accurately recorded the submissions made in open court and that no clerical or accidental error existed warranting correction.
Issues
- Whether the alleged incorrect recording of submissions constitutes a clerical or accidental error under Section 152 CPC.
- Scope and limits of the Court’s power to modify or clarify judgments post-pronouncement.
Key Findings
- The Court held that the submissions recorded in the original judgment were accurate and reflected the proceedings in open court.
- It reiterated that Section 152 CPC is limited to correcting clerical or arithmetical mistakes or accidental slips, and cannot be invoked to alter substantive findings.
- Relying on Dwaraka Das v. State of M.P., the Court emphasized that once a judgment is pronounced, the Court becomes functus officio, and cannot modify its terms except for minor corrections.
- The Court clarified that substantive grievances must be addressed through appeal or review, not through an application under Section 152 CPC.
Decision
The Delhi High Court dismissed the application, holding that no clerical or accidental error was made out. However, it observed that the recorded statement would not prevent the appellant from availing appropriate legal remedies in accordance with law.
Significance
This order reinforces the narrow scope of Section 152 CPC, emphasizing that it cannot be used as a tool to revisit or alter judicial findings. It also reiterates the doctrine of functus officio, limiting post-judgment intervention by courts and preserving the sanctity and finality of judicial orders.
Disclaimer
Do not treat this as a substitute for legal advice as it may contain subjective errors.
Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor (Patent & Trademark Attorney), High Court of Delhi
#IPUpdate #IPCaselaw #IPLaw #IPRNews #Trademark #IndianIPUpdate #AdvocateAjayAmitabhSuman #IPAdjutor
