Introduction
This decision grapples with the tension between the need for effective enforcement against ever-evolving online infringement and the strict procedural boundaries imposed by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
While granting a permanent injunction and directing blocking of infringing domain names, the Court emphatically refused to incorporate a “dynamic injunction” mechanism that would allow post-decree impleadment of mirror or alphanumeric variant websites through the Joint Registrar.
This stance creates a deliberate divergence from earlier coordinate bench precedents such as UTV Software Communication Ltd. v. 1337X.To and Universal City Studios LLC v. Mixdrop Co., thereby reopening the debate on the scope of inherent powers under Section 151 CPC once a civil suit reaches finality.
The judgment also contains an urgent legislative appeal to the Central Government and Parliament to amend the CPC and the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, highlighting the growing frustration of successful IP litigants who obtain decrees yet face repeated evasion through technological mimicry.
Factual Background
Parties and Trademark
Mahindra & Mahindra Limited, the flagship company of the Mahindra Group founded in 1945, and its subsidiary Mahindra Logistics Limited (collectively the plaintiffs) have built an enormous reputation around the word mark “MAHINDRA”.
The mark is registered in Classes 12, 35 and 39 since the 1970s, with multiple device and word mark registrations spanning decades.
The Supreme Court itself recognised “MAHINDRA” as a well-known trademark in Mahendra & Mahendra Paper Mills Ltd. v. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd., (2002) 2 SCC 147.
The plaintiffs operate in automobiles, tractors, logistics and mobility solutions.
Defendants’ Activities
Defendant No. 1, Diksha Sharma, trading as “Mahidnra Packers Movers” (deliberate misspelling noted in the plaint), along with other contesting defendants, adopted the identical mark “MAHINDRA” in device and word form for packing and moving services.
They registered multiple domain names and operated listings on Google.
| Registered Domains |
|---|
| www.mahindrapackers.com |
| www.mahindrapackers.in |
| www.mahindrapackersmovers.com |
| www.mahindrapackersandmovers.com |
| www.mahindrapackersandmovers.in |
Defendants 5 to 8 were intermediaries (GoDaddy, Google LLC, etc.) while Defendant 9 was the Department of Telecommunications.
Later, mirror websites operated by Defendants 10–12 were impleaded.
The plaintiffs alleged:
- Classic infringement
- Passing off
- Dilution
- Consumer deception
This was based on the identical nature of the services and the fame of the “MAHINDRA” brand.
Procedural Background
Initial Orders
On 12 April 2023 the Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining use of “MAHINDRA” or any deceptively similar mark.
- Directed blocking of the five domains by Defendants 5, 7 and 8
- Issued directions to DoT for ISP-level blocking
- Ordered Google to de-index the domains
- Disabled associated Gmail accounts
Modifications and Impleadment
The order was modified on 2 May 2024 to permit impleadment of mirror/alphanumeric variants by way of application under Order I Rule 10 CPC, with the Joint Registrar empowered to extend the injunction.
- Defendants 10–12 impleaded on 2 August 2024
- Further impleadment on 9 September 2024
- Interim order extended to them
Compliance by Defendants
- GoDaddy disclosed registrant details
- Google confirmed de-indexing
- DoT issued blocking instructions to ISPs
Status at Final Hearing
By the time of final hearing, the original infringing domains stood blocked and no oral evidence was required under Rule 7(viii) of the Delhi High Court Intellectual Property Rights Division Rules, 2022.
The plaintiffs, while seeking decree in terms of the original prayers, additionally pressed for a “dynamic + injunction” clause allowing them to file fresh applications before the Joint Registrar even after decree to implead future mirror sites and extend the injunction automatically.
Reasoning
Core Reliefs
The Court first acknowledged that the core reliefs of permanent injunction, domain blocking and delisting stood satisfied through compliance.
Dynamic Injunction Issue
It then turned to the novel prayer for post-decree dynamic relief.
The plaintiffs relied on:
- Order VII Rule 7 CPC
- Prayer clause seeking relief against “any other domain name” containing “MAHINDRA”
- UTV Software and Universal City Studios precedents
Court’s Analysis
Justice Gedela meticulously dissected this contention.
- Once judgment is pronounced under Order XX CPC, the Court becomes functus officio
- The interim injunction merges into the final decree
- It ceases to have independent existence
Neither Section 151 nor any other provision of the CPC confers jurisdiction on the Court — much less on its Principal Officer, the Joint Registrar — to entertain fresh impleadment applications or extend injunctions after the decree is drawn up.
Post-Decree Limitations
The only permissible post-decree interventions are:
- Correction of clerical/arithmetical errors under Section 152 CPC
- Review under Order XLVII
Delegating to the Joint Registrar what the Court itself cannot do would amount to indirect circumvention of the doctrine of functus officio.
The judgment further emphasised that what cannot be achieved directly cannot be achieved indirectly, citing the Andhra Pradesh High Court precedent on delegation.
Departure from Precedents
The Court respectfully declined to follow the dynamic injunction framework in UTV and Universal City Studios insofar as it permitted post-pronouncement action by the Joint Registrar.
It noted that those decisions did not have the benefit of the binding Supreme Court authorities on functus officio.
Legislative Appeal
The judgment also contains a powerful obiter appeal to the Legislature and Central Government to urgently amend the CPC and IT Rules so that execution of decrees in internet-era IP cases does not remain illusory.
It recognised the practical reality of rapid mirror-site proliferation yet refused to stretch inherent powers beyond statutory limits.
Judgments with Complete Citation Discussed and Decision of Court
Supreme Court and High Court Authorities
The Court discussed and applied a formidable line of Supreme Court and High Court authorities.
- Dwaraka Das v. State of M.P., (1999) 3 SCC 500: The Supreme Court held that after pronouncement and signing of judgment the court becomes functus officio and cannot pass effective judicial orders; Section 152 is confined to accidental slips or omissions and does not permit variation of the decree on merits.
- State Bank of India v. S.N. Goyal, (2008) 8 SCC 92: Clarified that a judge becomes functus officio the moment the judgment is pronounced, signed and dated, subject only to Section 152 and review.
- Orissa Administrative Tribunal Bar Assn. v. Union of India, (2023) 18 SCC 1: Reiterated that the doctrine of functus officio gives effect to finality and prevents endless revisitation except through appeal or statutorily conferred review.
- Rajendra Tiwary v. Basudeo Prasad, (2002) 1 SCC 90: Was cited on Order VII Rule 7 but ultimately held not to support post-decree impleadment liberty.
Coordinate Bench Decisions Analysed
Coordinate bench decisions relied upon by plaintiffs were analysed in detail.
- UTV Software Communication Ltd. v. 1337X.To, (2019) SCC OnLine Del 10975: Permitted plaintiffs to implead mirror sites via Order I Rule 10 applications before the Joint Registrar even after decree.
- Universal City Studios LLC v. Mixdrop Co., (2023) SCC OnLine Del 3395: Followed the same mechanism.
The Court expressly stated it was “unable to subscribe” to these views to the extent they allow post-pronouncement action by the Joint Registrar, observing that the earlier benches did not have the benefit of the Supreme Court functus officio jurisprudence.
Decision of the Court
The decision of the Court was clear and categorical: the suit is decreed in terms of prayers (a) to (h) of the plaint — permanent injunction restraining use of “MAHINDRA” or any deceptively similar mark, mandatory injunction for blocking the listed domains and any other containing “MAHINDRA”, directions to DoT and Google, damages claim left for execution if quantified later, rendition of accounts and costs.
However, the specific relief for liberty to file post-decree applications under Order I Rule 10 CPC before the Joint Registrar for impleadment of mirror sites and extension of injunction under Section 151 CPC is rejected. The decree sheet was directed to be drawn up accordingly and the suit disposed of.
Point of Law Settled in the Case
This judgment settles an important procedural point in intellectual property litigation involving online infringement: once a final judgment is pronounced and the decree is drawn under Order XX CPC, the trial court becomes functus officio and cannot retain jurisdiction to entertain applications for impleadment of mirror/redirect/alphanumeric variant websites or to extend injunctions through the Joint Registrar under Section 151 CPC.
The interim order merges in the final decree and cannot be independently enforced or expanded post-decree by any officer of the Court. Any such mechanism would require legislative amendment to the CPC or the IT Rules; judicial innovation cannot travel beyond the statutory framework. The ruling reinforces the doctrine of finality while simultaneously flagging the urgent need for statutory reform to address the practical helplessness of IP owners against rapidly mutating online infringers.
Case Details
| Particulars | Details |
|---|---|
| Case Title | Mahindra and Mahindra Limited & Anr Vs Diksha Sharma, Proprietor of Mahindra Packers Movers & Ors |
| Date of Order | 16 March 2026 |
| Case Number | CS(COMM) 209/2023 |
| Neutral Citation | 2026:DHC:2154 |
| Name of Court | High Court of Delhi |
| Name of Hon’ble Judge | Tushar Rao Gedela, J. |
Disclaimer: Readers are advised not to treat this as substitute for legal advise 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
