Awarding damages exceeding the amount claimed in the plaint is permissible if based on FRAND royalty evidence.

The Respondent (Philips) sued the Appellants for infringing Patent IN 218255 (Standard Essential Patent for EFM+ coding in DVDs).

During the suit, the patent expired, leaving only claims for damages/costs.

A Single Judge awarded significant damages (exceeding ₹20 Crores across three suits) based on a FRAND royalty of US $0.03 per DVD.

In an interim order dated 05.01.2026, the Division Bench stayed execution of the decree subject to the Appellants furnishing an unconditional bank guarantee for the principal amount.

The Appellants filed the present Review Petitions seeking an absolute stay without any deposit/guarantee, arguing that the awarded damages exceeded the ₹50 Lakhs originally claimed in the plaints.

1. Whether an error apparent on the face of the record exists to justify the review of a discretionary interim order under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the CPC.

2. Whether the Court is bound to grant an absolute stay of execution if the damages awarded by a Single Judge exceed the amount specifically claimed in the plaint without a formal amendment.

The Court applied the standards for review under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the CPC, which requires an "error apparent on the face of the record".

It interpreted Order XLI Rule 5 of the CPC, noting that the ordinary norm for staying a money decree is the deposit of the decretal amount.

The Court distinguished the principles in Lifestyle Equities C.V. v. Amazon Technologies Inc. (2025 SCC OnLine SC 2153), where an absolute stay may be granted in extraordinary cases involving lack of service or specific findings.

It further considered Ramnik Madhvani v. Taraben Madhvani (2004) 1 SCC 497 regarding the necessity of claims being present in the pleadings.

The Court held that a review of a discretionary order is only permissible if the exercise of discretion was "palpably impermissible".

While the Appellants argued that the damages awarded exceeded the ₹50 Lakhs claimed in the plaints, the Court noted that unlike the Lifestyle Equities case, the Appellants here participated in the trial and the Single Judge provided reasoned findings on the FRAND rate and stamper procurement.

The Court had already shown leniency by requiring only a bank guarantee for the principal amount instead of a cash deposit of the entire decretal amount (including interest/costs).

The discrepancy between the claimed amount and awarded amount did not constitute a "facially apparent error" that would mandate an unconditional stay, especially since the FRAND rate was not contested.

However, on grounds of equity, the Court extended the time for the Appellants to furnish the bank guarantees by two weeks from the date of the order.

It clarified that failure to comply would result in the automatic dismissal of the stay applications.