Holding

A consent decree may be altered under Section 151 CPC only when it is vitiated by fraud, misrepresentation or a patent mistake, which were not established in the present case.

Summary

The appellant Ajanta LLP sued Casio for alleged infringement of its registered design on a scientific calculator marketed as ORPAT FX‑991ES PLUS. The parties mediated and entered into a settlement agreement on 16 May 2019, which the High Court incorporated into a decree on 3 July 2019. The appellant later filed an application under CPC ss.151, 152 and 153 seeking correction of the decree, claiming a typographical error that split the trademark into "FX" and "991" rather than the intended "FX‑991ES PLUS". The High Court dismissed the application, holding that the settlement was reached after detailed deliberation and there was no fraud, misrepresentation or patent mistake. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether a consent decree can be altered under Section 151 when a misunderstanding is alleged, and affirmed that alteration is permissible only for fraud, misrepresentation or a patent mistake, none of which were shown. Consequently, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s order and dismissed the appeal.

Issues considered

Whether an application under Section 151 of the CPC can be entertained to modify a consent decree on the ground of a purported misunderstanding or typographical error in the settlement agreement.
Whether the settlement agreement was vitiated by fraud, misrepresentation, or a patent mistake justifying alteration of the decree.
Whether the High Court erred in treating the application as filed only under Section 152 and thereby refusing relief.

Legislation cited

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908s. 151, s. 152, s. 153, s. Order 23 Rule 3

Subjects

consent decreemodificationSection 151 CPCsettlement agreementtrademarkdesign infringementmisunderstandinginherent jurisdictionrectification

Judgment

308 [2022]REPORTS
SUPREME COURT 16 S.C.R. 308 [2022] 16 S.C.R.

A AJANTA LLP
v.
CASIO KEISANKI KABUSHIKI KAISHA D/B/A CASIO
COMPUTER CO. LTD.
B (Civil Appeal Nos 1052 of 2022)
FEBRUARY 04, 2022
[L. NAGESWARA RAO AND B. R. GAVAI, JJ.]
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – ss. 152 and 153 r/w. s.151 –
Application filed for correction/ rectification/ amendment of the
C
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
D 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/
E
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” –
F 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
G
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
H
308
AJANTA LLP v. CASIO KEISANKI KABUSHIKI KAISHA D/B/ 309
A CASIO COMPUTER CO. LTD.

mistake committed while entering into a settlement agreement due A
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,
B
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, C
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 “FX-
991ES PLUS” as a whole and not with reference to “FX”. A close
D
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 E
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
F
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 G
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
H
310 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 16 S.C.R.

A 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;
B 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
C 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.

D Case Law Reference

[1955] SCR 99 referred to Para 11

[1991] 1 Suppl. SCR 187 referred to Para 12

E [1992] 3 Suppl. SCR 524 referred to Para 11

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1052
of 2022.

From the Judgment and Order dated 22.11.2019 of the High Court
F of Delhi at New Delhi in I.A. No. 11370 of 2019 in C.S. [Comm.] No.
1254 of 2018.

K. V. Viswanathan, Sr. Adv., T. Sundar Ramanathan, Vivek
Pandey, Navneet, Ms. Harshapreetha, Venkataraman, Aravind Raj,
G Advs. for the Appellant.

Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Chander Lall, Sr. Advs., Manish
Sharma, Ms. Nancy Roy, Karan Bajaj, Ms. Jyotideep Kaur, Ms. Prakriti
Varshney, Ms. Payal Kalhan, Ms. Ananya Chug, Advs. for the
Respondents.
H
AJANTA LLP v. CASIO KEISANKI KABUSHIKI KAISHA D/B/ 311
A CASIO COMPUTER CO. LTD.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by A
L. NAGESWARA RAO, J.
Leave granted.
1. Aggrieved by the judgment dated 22.11.2019 of the High Court
of Delhi, dismissing the application filed by the Appellant under Sections B
152 and 153 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
(for short “the CPC”) seeking modification of the judgment dated
03.07.2019, the Appellant is before this Court.
2. The Respondent filed a suit against the Appellant for the
following reliefs: C
“A. The Defendants, their directors, agents, sellers, retailers,
distributors, suppliers, franchisees, representatives,
employees, affiliates and assigns be restrained by a permanent
injunction from manufacturing, importing, marketing,
advertising, promoting, offering for sale, selling, exporting D
and/ or using the impugned product ORPAT FX-991ES PLUS
bearing the Plaintiff’s Registered Design bearing Nos. 214283
and 214282 dated 16/01/2008 in Class 18-01 for its scientific
calculator CASIO FX-991ES PLUS by itself or in combination
with any other design(s); and/ or other articles/ goods/
products bearing the impugned design or any other design E
which is identical to or is a fraudulent imitation of Plaintiff ’s
Registered Designs, so as to commit piracy of the Plaintiff’s
Registered Design Nos. 21483 and 214282.
B. The Defendants, their directors, agents, sellers, retailers,
distributors, suppliers, franchisees, representatives, F
employees, affiliates and assigns be directed by a decree of
mandatory injunction directing that they at their own expense:
i. Recall all the impugned products and/ or any marketing,
promotional and advertising materials that bear or
incorporate the impugned design or any other articles/ G
goods/ products which bears a design which is a
fraudulent or an imitation of the Plaintiff ’s Registered
Designs, which has been manufactured and/ or sold,
distributed, displayed or advertised or promoted in the
market, including on online retail/ e-commerce websites.
H
312 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 16 S.C.R.

A ii. Deliver to the Plaintiff for destruction all the materials
including impugned products and/ or any marketing,
promotional and advertising materials that bear or
incorporate the impugned design or any other articles/
goods/ products which bears a design which is a
fraudulent or an imitation of the Plaintiff ’s Registered
B
Designs.
iii. Make full and fair disclosure to the Plaintiff any design
application or registration for the impugned design and/
or any other design which is a fraudulent or an imitation
of the Plaintiff’s Registered Designs, and withdraw such
C applications and/ or surrender such registrations under
intimation to the Plaintiff.
iv. Make a full and fair disclosure to the Plaintiff of the
full details such as names and addresses of the party(s)
involved in the manufacturing, marketing, distributing
D and selling the impugned products.
C. The Defendant be called upon to allow inspection of their
accounts to assist in ascertaining the amount of profits made
by them and/ or damages including exemplary and penal
damages suffered by the Plaintiff on account of the
E Defendants’ offending activities and a decree is passed in
favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant for the
amount found due.
D. Cost of the suit be awarded to the Plaintiff; and

F E. Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court thinks fit and
proper in the circumstances of the case is allowed in favor of
the Plaintiff and against the Defendant.”
3. According to the Plaintiff, the Defendant lifted each and every
novel element of the original design, shape and configuration for its
scientific/ electronic calculator ‘ORPAT FX-991ES PLUS’. The
G
Respondent applied for a design registration for its electronic calculator
namely ‘CASIO FX-991ES PLUS’ and it was introduced in India in
October, 2011. 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 for the reliefs referred to above. The High
H
AJANTA LLP v. CASIO KEISANKI KABUSHIKI KAISHA D/B/ 313
A CASIO COMPUTER CO. LTD. [L. NAGESWARA RAO, J.]

Court of Delhi passed an ex-parte ad-interim order of stay on 28.11.2018. A
Thereafter, the parties were referred to mediation by the High Court of
Delhi on 18.12.2018. After a detailed correspondence and exchange of
e-mails between the counsel appearing for the parties, a settlement was
arrived at vide a Settlement Agreement dated 16.05.2019. The High
Court decreed the suit on 03.07.2019 in terms of the Settlement
B
Agreement. Subsequently, an Application was filed by the Appellant under
Sections 152 and 153 read with Section 151 of the CPC for correction/
rectification/ amendment of the judgment dated 03.07.2019. The
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 C
Agreement as “FX-991ES PLUS/ FX/ 991”. As stated above, the High
Court dismissed the Application. Hence, this Appeal.
4. We have heard Mr. K.V. Viswanathan, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the Appellant and Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Mr.
Chander Lal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Respondents. D
On behalf of the Appellant, it was contended that the High Court
committed an error in dismissing the Application by considering the same
to have been filed only under Section 152 of the CPC. It was submitted
that the High Court ought to have considered the Application by referring
to Order 23 Rule 3 read with Section 151 of the CPC. The learned
Senior Counsel argued that misunderstanding between the parties is a E
valid ground to interfere with a consent decree by relying upon the
judgment of this Court in Shankar Sitaram Sontakke & Anr. v.
Balkrishna Sitaram Sontakke & Ors.1 and Byram Pestonji Gariwala
v. Union Bank of India & Ors.2. The learned Senior Counsel further
argued that the High Court has inherent jurisdiction to correct the terms F
of a consent award to bring it in conformity with the intended compromise
by placing reliance on a judgment of this Court in Compack Enterprises
India Pvt. Ltd. v. Beant Singh3. He also relied upon the judgment of
the Privy Council in Sourendra Nath Mitra & Ors. v. Srimati Tarubala
Dasi4 to contend that the inherent power of a Court should be exercised
not to allow its proceedings to give rise to substantial injustice. Mr. G
Viswanathan referred to the e-mails exchanged between the advocates
1
AIR 1954 SC 352
2
(1992) 1 SCC 31
3
(2021) 3 SCC 702
4
AIR 1930 PC 158 H
314 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 16 S.C.R.

A of the parties and submitted that the intention of the parties throughout
related to the use of scientific calculator ‘FX-991ES PLUS’ only. He
submitted that it would be clear from the correspondence that all along
‘FX’ and ‘991’ were separated by a ‘-’ (hyphen) and for the first time a
‘/’ (slash) was introduced in the final version of the Settlement Agreement.
According to the Appellant ‘FX’ is a common generic name that is used
B
to denote “function of” and it is not capable of being independently
trademarked. The Appellant realized the mistake only after a legal notice
was issued by the Respondent on 26.07.2019 in which it was mentioned
that the Appellant had agreed not to use “FX” or “991” as per the
Settlement Agreement in spite of which the Appellant was using “FX” in
C violation of the Settlement Agreement.
5. The Respondents submitted that there is no allegation of fraud
or misrepresentation in arriving at the Settlement Agreement and the
High Court was right in dismissing the Application seeking modification
of the decree. It was submitted on behalf of the Respondents that the
D parties agreed that the advocates would act as mediators. Several
mediation sessions were held, and e-mails were exchange between the
advocates appearing for the parties whereafter a Settlement Agreement
was entered into between the parties. The Final agreement was checked
and signed by the mediator and finally, the Court examined the terms of
the Agreement in terms of which a decree was passed. After applying
E its mind to the Settlement Agreement, the High Court passed a decree in
terms of the Agreement. A perusal of the correspondence between the
advocates for the parties would clearly demonstrate that the Respondent
made it clear that the Appellant should not use “FX-991ES PLUS”/
“FX-991ES” or any deceptively or confusingly similar mark. Referring
F to the judgments relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel for the
Appellant, Dr. Singhvi argued that consent decrees create estoppel by
judgment against the parties and cannot be interfered with unless the
decree is vitiated by fraud, misrepresentation or a patent or obvious
mistake. He submitted that Respondent No. 1 has adopted trademark
‘FX’ for scientific and electronic calculators since the year 1985.
G Respondent No. 1 obtained a Design registration for the mark “FX”
bearing No.5010491 in Class-9 and claiming use since 29.01.1999.
Countering the submissions of Mr. Viswanathan, learned Senior Counsel
that “FX” is used by other manufacturers, Dr. Singhvi, learned Senior
Counsel relied upon a list of 3 rd party manufacturers of scientific
H
AJANTA LLP v. CASIO KEISANKI KABUSHIKI KAISHA D/B/ 315
A CASIO COMPUTER CO. LTD. [L. NAGESWARA RAO, J.]

calculators who have adopted their respective marks for their scientific A
calculators without using their trade mark “FX”.
6. It is necessary to refer to the correspondence between the
advocates of the parties for better appreciation of the contention that
there was a misunderstanding between the parties while entering into
the Settlement Agreement which needs to be corrected. On 07.02.2019, B
the advocate for the Respondent communicated the proposed terms to
the advocate for the Appellant. It was stated in the said e-mail that the
Appellant will cease and desist using the mark “FX-991ES PLUS” /
“FX-991ES” or any other similar mark as well as the impugned design
or any other similar design. In response, an e-mail was sent by the
Appellant on the same day that the Appellant will cease and desist using C
the mark “FX-991ES PLUS”/ “991ES” or any other similar mark as
well as the impugned design or any other similar design. In addition, it
was stated as follows: “Approved and already detailed in the affidavit
(w.e.f. 30.11.2018) filed before the High Court.” The draft terms for
mediation were prepared by the advocate for the Respondent and D
communicated to the advocate for the Appellant on 04.03.2019. It was
mentioned therein as follows:
“a. The Third Party acknowledges that the First Party has
the exclusive rights over the design of its scientific calculator
CASIO FX-991ES PLUS and the trademarks FX-991ES PLUS/ E
FX-991ES. The third party further undertakes never to adopt
and/ or manufacture and/ or sell and/or offer of sale and/ or
advertise/ promote or use in any manner the impugned design
or any other design similar to that of the First party’s
registered designs bearing nos. 214283 and 214282, dated
16/01/2008 in Class 18-01. The Third Party further F
undertakes never to adopt and/ or advertise/ promote or use
in any manner, any goods or services which incorporate the
First Party’s FX-991ES PLUS/ FX-991ES or any deceptively
or confusing similar mark.;
b. xx xx xx G
c. The Third Party undertakes that it has already ceased use
of the impugned design and the marks FX-991ES PLUS/ FX-
991ES and refrains from any use in the future as well;

H
316 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 16 S.C.R.

A d. The Third Party undertakes to never use the packaging/
trade dress of the First Party’s scientific calculator FX-991ES
PLUS, annexed herewith as Annexure A or any other
deceptively and confusing similar packaging, which is
identical and/ or deceptively and confusingly similar to the
First Party’s packaging/ trade dress for its scientific
B
calculators FX-991ES PLUS;”
7. A modified Settlement Agreement was communicated by the
advocate for the Appellant to the advocate for the Respondent on
07.03.2019 in which it was mentioned as follows:
C “a. The third party undertakes never to adopt and/ or
manufacture and/ or sell and/ or offer of sale and/ or
advertise/ promote or use in any manner the impugned design,
which shall mean and include the subject matter of the
challenge in Suit being C.S.(COMM.) No. 1254 of 2018
before the High Court of Delhi or any other design similar to
D that of the First party’s registered designs bearing nos.
214283 and 214282 dated 16/01/2008 in Class 18-01. The
Third Party further undertakes never to adopt and/ or
advertise/ promote or use in any manner, any goods or services
which incorporate the First Party’s FX-991ES PLUS/ FX-
E 991ES marks, in their entirely or the numeral 991.;
b. xx xx xx
c. The Third Party reiterates that since and from 30.11.2018
it has neither manufactured nor marketed nor dispatched any
calculator bearing the impugned Design and that it has
F already ceased use of the Impugned Design and the marks
FX-991ES PLUS/ FX-991ES and would refrain from any use
in the future as well.;
d. The Third Party undertakes to never use the packaging/
trade dress of the First Party’s scientific calculator FX-991ES
G PLUS, annexed herewith as Annexure A or any other
packaging, which is identical and/ or deceptively and
confusingly similar to the First Party’s packaging/ trade dress
as described in aforementioned Annexure A.;”

H
AJANTA LLP v. CASIO KEISANKI KABUSHIKI KAISHA D/B/ 317
A CASIO COMPUTER CO. LTD. [L. NAGESWARA RAO, J.]

8. As response to mediation terms sent by the advocate for the A
Respondent on 27.03.2019, the advocate for the Appellant suggested
some alterations in the mediation terms in his e-mail dated 10.04.2019.
The relevant changes that were suggested were made in track mode
and are as follows:
“a. The third party undertakes never to adopt and/ or B
manufacture and/ or sell and/ or offer of sale and/ or
advertise/ promote or use in any manner the impugned design,
or any other design similar to that of the First party’s Design
registration No.’s/trade dress of FX-991ES PLUS bearing nos.
214283 and 214282 dated 16/01/2008 in Class 18-01. The
Third Party further undertakes never to adopt and/ or C
manufacture and/ or sell and/ or offer of sale and/ or
advertise/ promote or use in any manner, any goods or services
which incorporate the First Party’s designs of FX-991ES
PLUS bearing nos. 214283 and 214282 dated 16/01/2008 in
Class 18-01 trade mark FX-991ES PLUS/ FX-991ES in their D
entirety and/ or the term FX and/ or numeral 991.;
b. The Third Party agrees to never challenges in any way, or
create any hindrance to, either by themselves or with any other
party or supporting any party in any such action, the rights
of First Party in the Design registration No’s. 214283 and E
214282 dated 16/01/2008 in Class 18-01 for its scientific
calculator during the term of their registration.
c. The Third Party reiterates that since and from 30.11.2018,
as undertaken in the Affidavit dated December 7, 2018 of
Mr. Nevil P. Patel, it has neither manufactured nor marked F
nor dispatched any calculator bearing the Impugned Design
and the marks FX-991ES PLUS/ FX-991ES that it has already
ceased use of the First Party’s registered designs of FX-991ES
PLUS bearing nos. 214283 and 214282 dated 16/01/2008 in
Class 18-01 and would refrain from any use in the future as
well.; G
d. The Third Party undertakes to never use the packaging/
trade dress of the First Party’s scientific calculator FX-991ES
PLUS First Party’s registered designs of FX-991ES PLUS
bearing nos. 214283 and 214282 dated 16/01/2008 in Class
H
318 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 16 S.C.R.

A 18-01, annexed herewith as Annexure A or any other
packaging, which is identical and/ or deceptively and
confusingly similar to the First Party’s packaging/ trade dress
above as described in aforementioned Annexure A.’
e. The Third Party has already recalled all the products
B bearing the impugned design and/ or any marketing,
promotional and advertising materials that bear or
incorporate the impugned design or any other articles/ goods/
products which bears the impugned design, which have been
manufactured or promoted in the market, including but not
limited on online retail/ e-commerce websites.;
C
f. In view of the aforesaid recall, the Third Party undertakes
that it has already sent e-mails/ notice to all its distributors
and retailers who have having direct business relation with
the Third party to recall the impugned products from the
market. Copy ies of one such e-mails/ notices dated sent by
D the Third Party are collectively annexed herewith as Annexure
B[Colly]. However, the Third Party is not in a position to recall
unsold products bearing the impugned design in the open
market and therefore would not be held responsible for such
products bearing the impugned design.
E g. The Third Party undertakes that the quantum of stocks
mentioned in their affidavit dated December 07, 2018 are
true and correct and the Third Party has not manufactured
and/or distributed the impugned products since November 30,
2018. The Third Party further undertakes that as mentioned
F in the affidavit dated December 7, 2018, the Defendants has
removed the external body of the remaining 2560 products
bearing the impugned design and destroyed the said pieces,
which were lying in its factory.
h. The Third Party undertakes that there is no pending design
G application or registration for the impugned design and/ or
any other design which is identical to or an obvious imitation
of the First Party’s registered Design No.’s 214283 and
214282.;
i. The Third Party undertakes that there is no pending trade
mark application or registration for the marks FX-991ES Plus/
H
AJANTA LLP v. CASIO KEISANKI KABUSHIKI KAISHA D/B/ 319
A CASIO COMPUTER CO. LTD. [L. NAGESWARA RAO, J.]

FX-99ES and/ or any other mark comprising of the term FX A
and/ or numeral 991.;”
9. Thereafter, on 14.05.2019 a final draft of the Settlement
Agreement from the Respondents’ side was communicated to the
advocate for the Appellant in which it was categorically stated that the
Appellant undertakes not to adopt/ manufacture/ sell/ offer/ advertise/ B
promote/ use in any manner, any goods incorporating the Design of the
Respondent of ‘FX-991ES PLUS’ bearing Nos. 214283 and 214282 dated
16.01.2008 in Class 18-01 and/ or the trade mark ‘FX-991ES PLUS’/
‘FX’/ ‘991’ and/ or its packaging or any other identically, deceptively
and/ or confusingly similar packaging to that of the Respondents’
packaging. In response, an e-mail was sent by the advocate of the C
Appellant enclosing the mediations terms in the same terms as proposed
by the advocate for the Respondents in his e-mail dated 14.05.2019.
Finally, the Settlement Agreement was executed between the parties on
16.05.2019.
10. Though, there were alterations that were proposed by the D
advocate for the Appellant during the course of correspondence, no
objection was raised to the proposed terms of the Settlement Agreement
communicated by the Advocate for the Respondent on 14.05.2019 which
ultimately was the final Settlement Agreement signed by the parties.
11. In Banwari Lal v. Chando Devi (Smt.) (through LRs.) & E
Anr.5 this Court was concerned with a compromise on the basis of which
the Appellant delivered possession of the disputed land to the Respondent.
Later, on verification and inspection of the records, the Appellant realized
that his advocate colluded with the defendants in the suit and had played
fraud on him by filing a fabricated petition of compromise. The Trial F
Court recalled the order on the ground that the compromise petition was
not signed by the parties as required by proviso to Rule 3 of Order 23 of
the CPC. The Revision Petition filed by the Respondent was allowed by
the High Court against which the Appellant filed an Appeal before this
Court. It was held in the said case that an Application to exercise the
power under proviso to Rule 3 of Order 23 can be labelled under Section G
151 of the CPC. It was observed in the judgment that the illegality and
validity of a compromise can be examined under Section 151 of the
CPC. Mr. Viswanathan, learned Senior Counsel relied upon a judgment

5
(1993) 1 SCC 581 H
320 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 16 S.C.R.

A of the Privy Council in Sourendra Nath Mitra & Ors. (supra) in support
of his submission that the Courts retain an inherent power not to allow
their proceedings to be used to further substantial injustice. In view of
the law laid down by this Court in Banwari Lal (supra), the question
that arises for consideration is whether the Appellant has made out a
case for modification/ alteration of the decree by his application being
B
treated to be one under Rule 3 of Order 23 of the CPC. Resolving a
dispute pertaining to a compromise arrived at between the parties, this
Court in Shankar Sitaram Sontakke & Anr. (supra) held as under:
“If the compromise was arrived at after due consideration by
the parties and was not vitiated by fraud, misrepresentation,
C mistake or misunderstanding committed by the High Court –
the finding which was not interfered with by the High Court –
it follows that the matter which once concluded between the
parties who were dealing with each other at arm’s length
cannot now be reopened.”
D 12. A judgment by consent is intended to stop litigation between
the parties just as much as a judgment resulting from a decision of the
Court at the end of a long drawn-out fight. A compromise decree creates
an estoppel by judgment6. It is relevant to note that in Byram Peston
Gariwala (supra), this Court held that the Appellant-therein did not raise
E any doubt as to the validity or genuineness of the compromise nor a case
was made out by him to show that the decree was vitiated by fraud or
misrepresentation. While stating so, this Court dismissed the Appeal.
13. A consent decree would not serve as an estoppel, where the
compromise was vitiated by fraud, misrepresentation, or mistake. The
F 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
G projected by the learned Senior Counsel for 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
“FX-991ES PLUS” as a whole and not with reference to “FX”. A close

6
H (1992) 1 SCC 31 – Byram Peston Gariwala v. Union of India
AJANTA LLP v. CASIO KEISANKI KABUSHIKI KAISHA D/B/ 321
A CASIO COMPUTER CO. LTD. [L. NAGESWARA RAO, J.]

scrutiny of the correspondence between the parties would show that the A
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
B
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, we have 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 C
either of fraud or misrepresentation on the part of the Respondent. We
are 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
D
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.
14. For the foregoing reasons, we uphold the judgment of the E
High Court and dismiss the Appeal.

Ankit Gyan and Amarendra Kumar Appeal dismissed.
(Assisted by : Pragya Samal, LCRA)
F

G

H