Case Title: Principal Commissioner of Customs Vs. Loreal SA:High Court of Delhi:Hon'ble Mr. Justice Saurabh Banerjee:May 15, 2025: CM(M)-IPD 19/2025:2025:DHC:3938
Fact of the Case:
The Principal Commissioner of Customs challenged orders passed by the District Judge (Commercial Court) concerning proceedings related to a trademark infringement case filed by Loreal. The dispute primarily involves the seizure and impoundment of counterfeit goods bearing Loreal’s trademark, and subsequent orders issued by the Commercial Court concerning enforcement and related procedural matters. The Customs department objects to some proceedings initiated after the court's final judgment in a suit for confiscation, contending that the subsequent proceedings are not maintainable.
Procedural Detail:
Loreal filed a suit for confiscation and non-release of counterfeit goods on May 8, 2017.The Trial Court decreed the suit in favor of Loreal on October 19, 2024.A separate order, also dated October 19, 2024, initiated proceedings numbered MISC DJ/3623/2024.The Customs department challenged various orders of the Trial Court, including an order dated January 17, 2025.The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India was filed by the Customs seeking to set aside these orders.The case involves procedural questions about whether subsequent proceedings after a final judgment are maintainable and whether the Trial Court became functus officio.
Issue:
Whether the proceedings initiated by the Trial Court post the final judgment in the suit for confiscation were maintainable and whether the Trial Court had jurisdiction to issue certain orders after passing the decree and considering itself functus officio?
Decision:
The High Court, after hearing the arguments, observed that the Trial Court had erroneously initiated proceedings (MISC DJ/3623/2024) subsequent to its final decree, which was not permissible as the Court had become functus officio after passing the decree. The Court noted that the Trial Court could not have issued orders or initiated proceedings related to enforcement after closing the suit by decree. The petition was allowed, and the orders passed in MISC DJ/3623/2024, including the order dated January 17, 2025, were set aside. The Court directed that the order be sent for compliance, emphasizing the need for judicial propriety.
