LIFESTYLE EQUITIES C.V. & ANR. versus AMAZON TECHNOLOGIES INC.

LIFESTYLE EQUITIES C.V. & ANR. versus AMAZON TECHNOLOGIES INC.

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court Division Bench: Order XLI r.1(3) is directory and r.5 does not make deposit of the decretal amount an absolute condition precedent to grant stay; appellate courts have discretion to grant unconditional stay in exceptional cases where sufficient cause is shown (e.g., egregious perversity, patent illegality, facial untenability); the High Court properly considered prima facie defects (lack of valid service, absence of pleadings supporting massive damages, lack of findings of involvement) and did not err in granting stay without deposit.

Parties
Original Plaintiffs: Lifestyle Equities C.V. & Anr.; Original Defendant: Amazon Technologies INC.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
07 October 2025
Procedural Posture
Special Leave Petition (civil) No. 19767 of 2025 / Decision on Special Leave Petition
Outcome
Special Leave Petition dismissed; no interference with impugned High Court judgment and order dated 01.07.2025
Legal Topics
Order XLI Rule 5 CPC, Stay of Execution of Money Decree, Sufficient Cause, Service of Summons, Deposit of Decretal Amount and Security, Exceptional Case for Unconditional Stay
Civil Procedure Trademark/intellectual Property Arbitration Order XLI Rule 5 CPC Stay of Execution of Money Decree Sufficient Cause Service of Summons Deposit of Decretal Amount and Security +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lifestyle Equities C.V. & Anr.

Original Plaintiffs

Amazon Technologies INC.

Original Defendant

Procedural Posture

Special Leave Petition (civil) No. 19767 of 2025 / Decision on Special Leave Petition

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Division Bench erred in staying execution of a money decree under Order XLI r.5 CPC without insisting on deposit of the decretal amount or security
  2. 2 Whether Order XLI r.1(3) is mandatory or directory and effect of non-compliance on stay applications
  3. 3 Whether there was valid service of summons and applicability of second proviso to Order IX r.13 CPC

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court Division Bench: Order XLI r.1(3) is directory and r.5 does not make deposit of the decretal amount an absolute condition precedent to grant stay; appellate courts have discretion to grant unconditional stay in exceptional cases where sufficient cause is shown (e.g., egregious perversity, patent illegality, facial untenability); the High Court properly considered prima facie defects (lack of valid service, absence of pleadings supporting massive damages, lack of findings of involvement) and did not err in granting stay without deposit.

Court Disposition

Special Leave Petition dismissed; no interference with impugned High Court judgment and order dated 01.07.2025

Orders

  • Exemption application allowed
  • Heard senior counsel for parties