Introduction: Limits On Court Corrections After Judgment

Courts pronounce judgements after hearing arguments, and sometimes parties feel that what was said in open court or recorded in the order needs a small correction.

But how far can a court go in changing its own recorded words after the judgement is out? This case highlights the narrow limits of such corrections under Indian law.

It shows that once a judgement is delivered, the court cannot easily rewrite what happened during proceedings, especially if it touches the heart of what was argued.

The dispute arose in a trademark battle between e-commerce giant Flipkart and a smaller company called Marc Enterprises, but this particular order focused only on a follow-up request for clarification rather than the trademark itself.

Factual Background Of The Flipkart vs Marc Enterprises Case

The underlying dispute involved Flipkart using the mark “MARQ” for its private label products, particularly electrical appliances.

Marc Enterprises, which had been using and registering marks like “MARC” for similar goods for many years, claimed that Flipkart’s mark was deceptively similar and would confuse customers.

Trial Court Decision

• The trial court had granted an interim injunction stopping Flipkart from using “MARQ”.

Appeal Before The Delhi High Court

• Flipkart challenged this injunction before the Delhi High Court in an appeal.
• The High Court heard the matter and dismissed the appeal on April 10, 2026, upholding the injunction against Flipkart.

Post-Judgment Developments

Immediately after the judgement was pronounced in open court, there was some discussion about giving Flipkart time to comply with the order.

Key Case Summary

Aspect	Details
Parties Involved	Flipkart vs Marc Enterprises
Disputed Mark	“MARQ” vs “MARC”
Legal Issue	Trademark infringement and deceptive similarity
Trial Court Order	Interim injunction against Flipkart
High Court Decision	Appeal dismissed on April 10, 2026
Focus Of Current Order	Clarification request post-judgment

Procedural Background

After the main judgement dismissing the appeal, Flipkart filed an application under Section 152 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

In this application, Flipkart claimed that the judgement had incorrectly recorded the submission made by its senior counsel right after the pronouncement.

According to Flipkart, the counsel had asked for time to explore and avail legal remedies against the judgement.

Flipkart wanted the court to modify paragraph 26 of the judgement and grant four weeks specifically for pursuing further legal options.

Marc Enterprises strongly opposed this, arguing that the judgement accurately captured what was said in open court and that no change was needed or allowed.

The matter came up before the same judge who had delivered the main judgement.

Both sides presented their views on what exactly had transpired in court on the day of pronouncement.

Reasoning

The court carefully examined the application and the arguments from both sides.

It noted that the paragraphs in question recorded the submissions made by the parties immediately after the judgement was pronounced.

The judge observed that these recordings matched what had actually happened in open court.

Changing them would amount to altering the court’s own understanding of the proceedings, which goes beyond a simple clerical fix.

Scope Of Section 152 Of The CPC

The court emphasised that Section 152 of the CPC is meant only for correcting genuine clerical or arithmetical mistakes or accidental slips or omissions.

It is not a tool to revisit or rewrite substantive parts of the judgement or the record of arguments that reflect the actual events.

Once a judgement is delivered, the court generally becomes functus officio, meaning it has finished its role in that matter and cannot make changes that affect the merits or the recorded position of the parties.

Supreme Court Precedents

• Dwaraka Das v. State of M.P. and Another: The respondent cited important Supreme Court decisions to support this view. In Dwaraka Das v. State of M.P. and Another, the Supreme Court explained that Section 152 allows only ministerial corrections of accidental errors and does not permit the court to pass fresh judicial orders or correct omissions that go to the root of the case.
• State of Maharashtra and Others v. Saeed Sohail Sheikh and Others: Similarly, the judgement in State of Maharashtra and Others v. Saeed Sohail Sheikh and Others helped clarify that ministerial acts under these sections involve no independent judgement or discretion — they are routine corrections without changing the substance.

Court’s Final Observations

The court rejected the idea that the recorded submission could be treated as a mere accidental slip.

It held that the judgement faithfully reflected the events in court.

At the same time, to address any concern, the court added a protective observation: the recorded statement by Flipkart’s counsel would not prevent the company from pursuing whatever legal remedies are available under law.

All rights and contentions of both parties were kept open.

The judge made it clear that this observation was added out of abundant caution and did not amount to any modification of the original judgement.

It caused no prejudice to Marc Enterprises because no counsel’s statement can legally bar a party from exercising its lawful rights.

Key Takeaways

• Section 152 CPC is limited to clerical and arithmetical corrections only.
• Courts cannot modify substantive parts of a judgement after pronouncement.
• The principle of functus officio restricts post-judgement alterations.
• Statements of counsel do not bar parties from exercising legal remedies.
• Appeal or review is the correct remedy for substantive errors.

Judgements With Complete Citation And Their Context Discussed

The court relied on two key Supreme Court precedents to explain the limited scope of Section 152 CPC.

Dwaraka Das v. State of M.P. And Another (1999) 3 SCC 500

In Dwaraka Das v. State of M.P. and Another, (1999) 3 SCC 500, the Supreme Court dealt with a situation where a party sought correction regarding interest in a contract dispute.

• The court clarified that Section 152 is restricted to fixing clerical mistakes or accidental omissions by the court in its ministerial capacity.
• It does not allow reopening or varying the terms of a judgement after it has been passed.
• The court becomes functus officio and cannot correct errors that touch the merits of the case.
• Such issues must be handled through proper appeal or review.

This ruling was cited to show that Flipkart’s request went beyond a simple clerical fix and could not be entertained.

State Of Maharashtra And Others v. Saeed Sohail Sheikh And Others (2012) 13 SCC 192

In State of Maharashtra and Others v. Saeed Sohail Sheikh and Others, (2012) 13 SCC 192, the Supreme Court discussed the meaning of “ministerial” acts and duties.

• It explained that these involve routine tasks carried out without exercising personal discretion or judgement.
• Such acts simply follow instructions or established rules.

This helped the court distinguish between minor corrections and any attempt to reinterpret or rewrite what happened in open court.

Legal Principle On Section 152 CPC

These judgements were discussed in detail to underline that courts must not use Section 152 or the inherent powers under Section 151 to alter the substance of what was recorded or decided.

Final Decision Of The Court

The Delhi High Court dismissed the clarification application filed by Flipkart. It held that no case was made out for any modification under Section 152 or Section 151 CPC because the judgement correctly recorded the proceedings.

The application was disposed of accordingly. However, the court added a clarifying observation that the recorded statement would not hinder Flipkart from availing any available legal remedies, and all rights of both parties remained open.

Point Of Law Settled In The Case

• This order reinforces a clear principle: after a judgement is pronounced, the court has very limited power to make changes.
• Section 152 CPC can only be used for genuine clerical or arithmetical mistakes or accidental slips that do not affect the merits or the accurate record of what occurred in court.
• Parties cannot use this provision to rewrite the history of submissions made in open court or to seek substantive alterations.
• The court becomes functus officio, and any deeper grievance must be addressed through appeal or other proper legal channels.
• At the same time, a mere recorded submission by counsel does not bind a party from pursuing lawful remedies.

Case Details

Particulars	Details
Case Title	Flipkart India Private Limited Vs Marc Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.
Date Of Order	24.04.2026
Case Number	FAO-IPD 46/2021
Name Of Court	High Court of Delhi
Name Of Hon’ble Judge	Hon’ble Mr Justice Tejas Karia

Disclaimer: Readers are advised not to treat this as a substitute for legal advice, as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.
 
Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi