Maj (Retd.) Sukesh Behl Proprietor, M/S Pearl Engineering Company & Anr. vs Koninklijke Philips Nv
- Court
- Delhi High Court
- Case type
- Not found
- Decided on
- 26-02-2026
$~16 & 20
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RFA(OS)(COMM) 13/2025
SURINDER KUMAR WADHWA & ANR. .....Appellants
Through: Mr. Jai Sai Deepak, Sr. Adv.
with Mr. Nikhil Sharma, Ms. Mugdha
Palsule, Advs.
versus
KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V. .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Dayan Krishnan, Sr. Adv.
with Mr. Pravin Anand, Ms. Vaishali Mittal,
Mr. Siddhant Chamola, Mr. Sridhar, Mr.
Gursimran Singh Narula, Advs.
+ RFA(OS)(COMM) 8/2025
MAJ (RETD.) SUKESH BEHL PROPRIETOR, M/S PEARL
ENGINEERING COMPANY & ANR. .....Appellants
Through: Mr. Jai Sai Deepak, Sr. Adv.
with Mr. Nikhil Sharma, Ms. Mugdha
Palsule, Advs.
versus
KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS NV .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Dayan Krishnan, Sr Adv,
with Mr. Pravin Anand, Ms. Vaishali Mittal,
Mr. Siddhant Chamola, Mr. Sridhar, Mr.
Gursimran Singh Narula, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
% 26.02.2026
RFA(OS)(COMM) 13/2025 & RFA(OS)(COMM) 8/2025 Page 1 of 15
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:27.02.2026
13:00:30
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
REVIEW PET. 89/2026 in RFA(OS)(COMM) 13/2025
REVIEW PET. 73/2026 in RFA(OS)(COMM) 8/2025
1. Alleging that the appellants had infringed Indian Patent IN
1
218255 , pertaining to a “Method of Converting Information Words to
2
a Modulated Signal”, the respondent, Koninklijke Philips N.V. ,
instituted CS (Comm) 423/2016, CS (Comm) 499/2018 and CS
3
(Comm) 519/2018 against the appellants, seeking decrees of
permanent injunction, restraining them from infringing the suit patent
and also claiming damages and costs.
2. During the course of the suits, the suit patent IN’255 expired by
efflux of time. The prayers for injunction were, therefore, rendered
infructuous, and the suits survived only qua damages and costs.
3. By judgment dated 20 February 2025, a learned Single Judge of
this Court disposed of the suits awarding damages of ₹ 7,22,50,000/-,
along with interest in CS (Comm) 423/2016, ₹ 1,61,85,000/- along
with interest and additional damages of ₹ 1,00,00,000/- in CS (Comm)
519/2018 and ₹ 12,43,25,700/- along with interest and additional
damages of ₹ 1,00,00,000/- in CS (Comm) 499/2018.
4. These Review Petitions have been filed only in RFA (OS)
(Comm) 13/2025, which emanates from CS (Comm) 519/2018, and
1
“IN’255”, the suit patent hereinafter
2
“Philips”, hereinafter
3
“the suits”, hereinafter
RFA(OS)(COMM) 13/2025 & RFA(OS)(COMM) 8/2025 Page 2 of 15
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:27.02.2026
13:00:30
RFA (OS) (Comm) 8/2025, which emanates from CS (Comm)
423/2016. Pearl Engineering is the main appellant in RFA (OS)
(Comm) 8/2025 and Siddharth Optical is the main appellant in RFA
(OS) (Comm) 13/2025.
5. We will not, therefore, advert, hereinafter, to RFA (OS)
(Comm) 14/2025, as no Review Petition has been preferred therein.
6. The appeals were accompanied by CM Appl. 25908/2025 [in
RFA (OS) (Comm) 8/2025] and CM Appl. 31118/2025 [in RFA (OS)
4
(Comm) 13/2025], under Order XLI Rule 5 of the CPC , seeking stay
of execution of the impugned judgment and decree.
7. By a detailed judgment dated 5 January 2026, we disposed of
the aforesaid CM Appl. 25908/2025 [in RFA (OS) (Comm) 8/2025]
and CM Appl. 31118/2025 [in RFA (OS) (Comm) 13/2025], with a
direction to the appellants to furnish, in each case, an unconditional
and irrevocable bank guarantee coving the principal amount of
damages awarded by the learned Single Judge.
8. Having thus obtained substantial respite from the requirement
of depositing the entire decretal amount with the Court, which is the
ordinary norm under Order XLI Rule 5 of the CPC, and having been
required only to furnish a bank guarantee for the principal amount in
each appeal, the appellants, like Oliver Twist, want more. The
appellants have now filed the present Review Petitions, seeking
4
“Code of Civil Procedure, 1908”, hereinafter
RFA(OS)(COMM) 13/2025 & RFA(OS)(COMM) 8/2025 Page 3 of 15
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:27.02.2026
13:00:30
review of our judgment dated 5 January 2026, and consequently,
seeking an absolute stay of execution of the impugned judgment dated
20 February 2025 of the learned Single Judge, without having to make
any deposit whatsoever.
9. We have heard Mr. J. Sai Deepak, learned Senior Counsel for
the appellants and Mr. Dayan Krishnan, learned Senior Counsel for
the respondent.
10. Before adverting to rival submissions of learned Senior
Counsel, it would be appropriate to set out, briefly, the manner in
which we have arrived at our decision to direct furnishing of a bank
guarantee for the principal amount in each appeal as a condition for
grant of stay.
11. The suit patent relates to a Method of Converting Information
Words to a Modulated Signal through a technology known as “EFM+
coding”. Inasmuch as it proffers to claim an essential and integral
industry standard in the manufacture, storage and replication of data in
5
Digital Versatile Discs , the suit patent qualifies as a Standard
6
Essential Patent . There were 13 claims in the suit patent. Claims 1 to
11 and 13 are method claims. Claim 12 claims a “record carrier on
which the modulated signal obtained by the method claimed in any
one of the preceding claims is provided in a track”.
5
“DVDs”, hereinafter
6
“SEP”, hereinafter
RFA(OS)(COMM) 13/2025 & RFA(OS)(COMM) 8/2025 Page 4 of 15
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:27.02.2026
13:00:30
12. The appellants’ contention, both before the learned Single
Judge as well as before us, was that it merely undertakes a process of
replication by which data contained on stampers, sourced from Moser
7
Baer India Ltd. was replicated by the appellants on to DVDs. The
contention was that the process of EFM+ coding was involved in the
creation of the stampers, in which the appellants play no part. The
replication of the data on DVDs from the stampers, it was submitted,
was a pure mechanical process which did not involve EFM+ coding
and was therefore outside the scope of the suit patent.
13. The learned Single Judge, in his judgment dated 20 February
2025, interpreted Claim 12 in the suit patent to include not merely the
stamper but also the DVDs and the process of replication of the data
from the stamper on to the DVDs.
14. In our judgment, we have held that, at least at the Order XLI
Rule 5 stage, this was a prima facie finding based on interpretation of
Claim 12 in the suit patent, which did not brook interference.
15. Of this finding, no review is sought.
16. We thereafter proceeded to examine the manner in which the
learned Single Judge computed damages. As the suit patent was a
SEP, damages would have to be computed on the basis of the royalty
8
to which Philips would be entitled at FRAND rates. Working out the
7
“Moser Baer”, hereinafter
8
Fair, Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory
RFA(OS)(COMM) 13/2025 & RFA(OS)(COMM) 8/2025 Page 5 of 15
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:27.02.2026
13:00:30
royalty payable to the Philips would involve (i) a determination of the
FRAND royalty rate to which the appellants would be entitled, per
DVD replicated by them and (ii) assessment of the number of DVDs
replicated by the appellants, from the stampers sourced from Moser
Baer. This latter step (ii), further, involved (a) determination of the
number of stampers sourced from Moser Baer by the appellants and
(b) determination of the number of DVDs which could be replicated
from one stamper. Needless to say, the product of (a) and (b) would
be the number of DVDs replicated by the appellants, to which the
assessed per DVD FRAND royalty rate could be applied, to work out
the FRAND royalty to which Philips would be entitled.
17. The FRAND royalty rate was worked out by the learned Single
Judge at US $ 0.03 per DVD. This was not questioned by the
appellants in the appeals.
18. Towards determination of factor (a) in para 16 above, the
learned Single Judge called upon the appellants to disclose the number
of stampers procured by them from Moser Baer, but the appellants
failed to do so. As a result, Philips had to communicate with Moser
Baer seeking details regarding the number of stampers replicated by
the appellants.
19. In the case of Pearl Engineering Company, the data provided by
Moser Baer confirmed that, during the period 14 July 2008 to 30 May
2015, Moser Baer had supplied 3031 stampers to Pearl Engineering.
The learned Single Judge had noted that the authenticity of this
RFA(OS)(COMM) 13/2025 & RFA(OS)(COMM) 8/2025 Page 6 of 15
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:27.02.2026
13:00:30
document was not questioned by Pearl Engineering. From this figure,
the learned Single Judge extrapolated the number of stampers supplied
to Pearl Engineering, during the period of three years prior to filing of
the suit, till expiry of the suit patent on 12 January 2015, as 2500. The
correctness of this figure was also not questioned by Pearl
Engineering. We held that, even otherwise, as Pearl Engineering had
not been forthcoming with respect to the number of stampers sourced
from Moser Baer, at a prima facie stage, there was no reason to
discredit the figure of 2500.
20. Once the number of stampers procured from Moser Baer had
been found to be 2500 during the period in issue, the only remaining
element in the arithmetical exercise leading up to the computation of
royalty payable at a FRAND rate of US $ 0.03 per DVD was to assess
the number of DVDs which could be produced from 2500 stampers.
The learned Single Judge held, on an estimate of 10000 DVDs
emerging from one stamper, that the total number of replicated DVDs
was 250,00,000.
21. It is at this juncture that we felt that the appellants had made out
a case for dispensation with the otherwise standard requirement of
deposit of the entire decretal amount.
22. We found, prima facie , the figure of 10,000 to be without any
basis forthcoming in the impugned judgment.
23. In the case of Siddharth Optical, the learned Single Judge held
RFA(OS)(COMM) 13/2025 & RFA(OS)(COMM) 8/2025 Page 7 of 15
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:27.02.2026
13:00:30
that Siddharth Optical would have manufactured and sold 65,00,000
DVDs during the period in issue. We could not, prima facie, discern
any basis for this figure in the judgment of the learned Single Judge.
24. Thus, while we did not find any prima facie reason to show
leniency while exercising jurisdiction under Order XLI Rule 5 of the
CPC in so far as the aspect of infringement was concerned, we found
the exercise of determination of the royalty payable to be, to the extent
of determination of the number of stampers replicated by the
appellants, to be prima facie somewhat speculative, without sufficient
basis forthcoming in the impugned judgment or otherwise from the
record.
25. We, therefore, held that the case did not justify directing deposit
of the entire decretal amount and that the appellants were entitled to
relief to some extent. We, therefore, directed the appellants in each
case to furnish an irrevocable and unconditional Bank Guarantee for
the principal amount, decreed by the learned Single Judge in the
corresponding suits within a period of eight weeks.
26. Pearl Engineering and Siddharth Optical now seek, by these
Review Petitions, review of our order and pray that complete stay of
execution of the impugned judgment and decree be granted.
27. The only submission advanced by Mr. J Sai Deepak, learned
Senior Counsel for the appellant - which is indeed the primary
submission in the review petitions as well – is that the appellants
RFA(OS)(COMM) 13/2025 & RFA(OS)(COMM) 8/2025 Page 8 of 15
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:27.02.2026
13:00:30
never claimed, in their plaints in the suits, the damages granted by the
learned Single Judge, and that the plaints were never amended. The
damages awarded by the learned Single Judge were contained only in
written submissions filed by the appellants before him. Mr. Sai
Deepak submits that, without amending the plaint, there could be no
question of awarding the damages sought in the written submissions.
He has drawn our attention, in this context, to the paragraphs in the
plaint and the prayer clause therein which deal with the valuation of
the suit. These paragraphs are identical in the suits and we, therefore,
reproduce para 47(d) and para 48(vi) [containing the prayers] in CS
(Comm) 519/2018 thus:
Para 47 (d)
“d) For an order of damages, this relief is valued for the
purposes of court fees and jurisdiction at ₹ 50,00,000/- and court
fees of Rs. 51,144/- is affixed thereon.”
Para 48(vi)
“vi) A decree for damages of ₹ 50,00,000/- be granted for
infringement of the Plaintiffs patents by the Defendants.”
28. Mr. Sai Deepak’s contention is that Philips having claimed
damages of only ₹ 50 lakhs in each of these suits, it could not have
been awarded damages of much higher amounts by the learned Single
Judge without amending the plaint. This sole factor, according to him,
suffices to grant complete stay of execution of the judgment of the
learned Single Judge and, in failing to do so, this Court has committed
an error apparent on the face of the record. He relies for this
submission on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Lifestyle
RFA(OS)(COMM) 13/2025 & RFA(OS)(COMM) 8/2025 Page 9 of 15
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:27.02.2026
13:00:30
9
Equities C.V. v. Amazon Technologies Inc and Ramnik Madhvani
10
v. Taraben Madhvani .
29. Having heard Mr. J Sai Deepak and perused the said decisions,
we are unable to agree with him that a case for review of our order
within the parameters of Order XLVII Rule 1 of the CPC is made out.
30. The judgment of which review is sought is discretionary in
nature. We have factored in various factors, already noted supra and,
keeping in mind the law that applies, have refrained from directing
deposit of the entire decretal amount which is the ordinary norm under
Order XLI Rule 5 of the CPC as Lifestyle Equities itself holds.
Instead, we have only directed furnishing of a bank guarantee and that
too, only for the principal amount in each appeal.
31. A case for review would, therefore, be made out only if the
appellant-review petitioner is able to demonstrate that it was
completely impermissible for us to pass such an order and that we
were bound in law to direct complete stay of execution of the
judgment and decree of the learned Single Judge. Only then could it
be said that our decision suffers from an “error apparent on the face of
the record”.
32. Where the order of which review is sought is discretionary in
nature, and the existence of discretion is not questioned, a case for
9
2025 SCC OnLine SC 2153
10
(2004) 1 SCC 497
RFA(OS)(COMM) 13/2025 & RFA(OS)(COMM) 8/2025 Page 10 of 15
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:27.02.2026
13:00:30
review would be made out only if it is demonstrated that the manner
of exercise of discretion was palpably impermissible in law.
33. The decisions on which Mr. Sai Deepak relies i.e. Lifestyle
Equities and Ramnik Madhvani , do not, in our opinion, make out
such a case.
34. Lifestyle Equities was a case in which there were manifold
grounds on which this Court resolved not to direct any deposit of the
decretal amount. The respondents in that case had not been formally
served in the suit. The entire trial, therefore, took place in the absence
of the respondents. This Court also noted that there were no
allegations of infringement against Amazon US, against whom the
judgment of the learned Single Judge had awarded damages of ₹
336,02,87,000.00/-. Furthermore, the Court noted that the order of the
learned Single Judge, too, did not return any specific finding of either
of infringement or of any involvement in the allegedly infringing
activities of Amazon US. It was on a cumulative assessment of all
these factors that we held the case to be an extraordinary one
deserving complete exemption from the requirement of deposit of the
decretal amount.
35. A reading of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Lifestyle
Equities reveals that the Supreme Court has also found our order to be
justified in view of all these factors, seen cumulatively.
36. In the present case, the only one of these aspects which,
RFA(OS)(COMM) 13/2025 & RFA(OS)(COMM) 8/2025 Page 11 of 15
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:27.02.2026
13:00:30
according to Mr. J Sai Deepak, applies, is that the damages claimed in
the suit were only ₹ 50 lakhs in each case and the plaints were never
amended.
37. That sole factor by itself, to our mind, may not make out a case
for reconsideration of our decision.
38. Unlike Lifestyle Equities , the appellants in these appeals, were
represented before the learned Single Judge and the entire trial and
conducting of the proceedings took place in their presence. The
FRAND royalty rate of US $ 0.03 per DVD has not been questioned
by the appellants even in these appeals. In so far as the number of
DVDs replicated by the appellants was concerned, the learned Single
Judge noted that the appellants were not forthcoming though they
were directed to disclose this figure. Philips, therefore, had no option
but to seek information from Moser Baer in that regard and the
learned Single Judge proceeded on the basis of the information
obtained from Moser Baer.
39. It is not as though, therefore, the learned Single Judge has
merely accepted the figure contained by the respondent in their written
submissions and decreed the suit. He has given, prima facie , cogent
and relevant reasons for working out the printed stampers procured
from Moser Baer as well as the FRAND royalty rate per DVD. The
only link, for which there was insufficient material on record, was the
number of DVDs which could be replicated from the stampers.
RFA(OS)(COMM) 13/2025 & RFA(OS)(COMM) 8/2025 Page 12 of 15
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:27.02.2026
13:00:30
40. Clearly, therefore, the facts in these appeals cannot be
compared with those which were before this Court in Lifestyle
Equities.
41. Even more distant from the present appeals is, to our mind, the
decision in Ramnik Madhvani .
42. In that case, the Supreme Court held that interest at bank rate
could not have been awarded without any such claim having been
made in the plaint. Quite obviously, that case cannot even be remotely
compared to that. That case pertained to a claim for interest at a
particular rate, and awarding of interest at a much higher rate without
any basis. In the present case, we have found that the decision of the
learned Single Judge is substantially supported by material which
emerged during trial, though prima facie we have found the manner of
working out by the learned Single Judge of the number of replicated
DVDs, to be arguable.
43. Neither of these decisions, to our mind, makes out a case for us
to reconsider our judgment under review to the extent it directs the
appellants to furnish an irrevocable bank guarantee covering the
principal amount in these appeals for grant of stay of the execution of
the judgment and decree of the learned Single Judge.
44. We, therefore, are of the opinion that no case for review of our
order is made out.
RFA(OS)(COMM) 13/2025 & RFA(OS)(COMM) 8/2025 Page 13 of 15
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:27.02.2026
13:00:30
45. Mr. J Sai Deepak seeks, at this stage, extension of time to
furnish bank guarantees as directed by us. Mr. Dayan Krishnan, per
contra, vociferously opposes the prayer and submits that the appellants
have already reaped a windfall in not having been directed to deposit
the entire decretal amount. No further leniency should be shown to
them, he urges.
46. We might have been inclined to agree with Mr. Krishnan, had it
been a case where we had not issued notice on these review petitions.
Having issued notice on these review petitions, which have remained
pending after notice since then, we are of the opinion that the
appellants would, in the interest of equity and fairness, be entitled to
some further time to comply with the requirement of furnishing a bank
guarantee.
47. Accordingly, while dismissing the review petitions on merits,
we enhance the time for depositing the bank guarantees in accordance
with our judgment dated 5 January 2026 by a period of two weeks
from the date of uploading of this order on the website of this Court.
48. We make it clear that no further extension of time would be
granted, and that failure to comply with the direction for furnishing
bank guarantees would result ipso facto in dismissal of CM Appl.
25908/2025 and CM Appl. 31118/2025 without further reference to
the Court.
49. Subject to the grant of extension of time as above, the review
RFA(OS)(COMM) 13/2025 & RFA(OS)(COMM) 8/2025 Page 14 of 15
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:27.02.2026
13:00:30
petitions are dismissed.
50. Let a copy of this order be e-mailed forthwith to learned
Counsel for the parties, and uploaded on the website of this Court.
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, J.
FEBRUARY 26, 2026
Dsn/yg/aky
RFA(OS)(COMM) 13/2025 & RFA(OS)(COMM) 8/2025 Page 15 of 15
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:27.02.2026
13:00:30