The recent judgment by the Delhi High Court in Strix Ltd. v. Maharaja Appliances Ltd. has reaffirmed that litigants, especially corporate entities, are obligated to remain vigilant of pending judicial proceedings, and parties which turn a blind eye to court proceedings do so at their own cost and consequence.
The matter emanated out of a patent infringement suit filed by Strix Ltd. (“Plaintiff”) against Maharaja Appliances Ltd. (“Defendant”) in 2009. The Defendant appeared and contested the suit till 2014, whereafter, it stopped appearing after filing its evidence. The erstwhile counsel for the Defendant took discharge in August of 2014. Multiple court notices were also issued to the Defendant, informing it about the pending court proceedings. However, despite service, the Defendant refrained from appearing. Accordingly, the Court proceeded in the absence of the Defendant and decreed the suit in favour of the Plaintiff. Notably, the Court awarded damages to the tune of Rs. 50,00,000/- and costs up to Rs. 31,44,925/- to the Plaintiff, payable by the Defendant. This judgment was previously covered by us here. The Plaintiff then filed execution proceedings in respect of the decree against the Defendant at the District Court.
Upon being faced with execution proceedings, the Defendant moved the Delhi High Court for restoration of the suit and for setting aside the ex parte decree stating that, owing to internal corporate restructuring, the Defendant was prevented from appearing before the court. The Defendant also advanced various other excuses, such as, denying having access to the email ID where the notices were served, renumbering of the suit, etc.
The Court, however, did not find force in such submissions and noted that the record demonstrated that the Defendant was well aware of the pendency of the suit proceedings. The Court observed that the Defendant had been grossly negligent manner in pursuing the matter was merely advancing lame excuses in order to wriggle out of its liability under the decree.
Pertinently, the Court observed that the Defendant was not a rustic or an illiterate person but was, in fact, a registered company, which was also appearing in the matter till the evidentiary stages. The Court ruled that companies are managed by educated persons who are well aware where their interest lies, and that such companies shall be liable to bear consequences if they do not pursue their case diligently. Lastly, the Court refused to condone the cumulative delay of 266 days by the Defendant in filing and re-filing the application for setting aside the ex parte decree, observing that the yardstick for condoning delays in commercial matters is very strict. Accordingly, the Court dismissed all applications, paving the way for the execution proceedings to continue.
Strix Ltd. v. Maharaja Appliances Ltd. 2025:DHC:828
Comments