In a major ruling on corporate liability and procedural fairness, the Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld the Delhi High Court’s order granting an unconditional stay on a ₹336 crore damages decree against Amazon Technologies Inc. The case was filed by Lifestyle Equities C.V., owner of the “Beverly Hills Polo Club” (BHPC) brand, alleging trademark infringement linked to Amazon’s “Symbol” brand.
Delivering the judgment, Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K.V. Viswanathan held that there was no valid reason to interfere with the Delhi High Court’s decision. “We see no good reason for us to interfere with the impugned judgment and order,” the bench observed, dismissing the Special Leave Petition filed by Lifestyle Equities.
Read also:- Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Anticipatory Bail Plea of Alleged Drone-Drug Smuggler Robert Masih
Background
The dispute began when Lifestyle Equities accused Amazon of selling apparel bearing an infringing logo under its “Symbol” line. In February 2025, the Delhi High Court’s Single Judge ruled ex parte-without Amazon’s participation-and awarded ₹336 crore in damages to Lifestyle, alongside a permanent injunction.
However, Amazon argued before the Division Bench that it was never properly served summons in the original suit, and that the trial proceeded without its knowledge. After reviewing the records, the High Court found merit in Amazon’s claims and granted an unconditional stay on the execution of the decree.
The plaintiffs challenged this before the Supreme Court, contending that the High Court had ignored mandatory requirements under Order XLI Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Code, which generally requires a deposit or security before a stay on a money decree.
Court’s Observations
The Supreme Court meticulously examined the reasoning adopted by the Delhi High Court and found no fault in its analysis. It noted that Amazon was proceeded against ex parte without valid service of summons, a fundamental procedural error that undermined the integrity of the trial.
“The law does not permit a defendant to be proceeded ex parte, even before summons in the suit are served on it,” the Court observed, affirming the High Court’s conclusion that the Single Judge’s decree was vitiated by serious irregularity.
The bench further stated that unconditional stays should be exercised “sparingly and only when exceptional circumstances exist,” but the present case fell within that category. The judgment clarified that a stay can be granted without a monetary deposit if the decree appears “egregiously perverse or riddled with patent illegalities.”
The Court also pointed out that the Single Judge had imposed enormous damages “without any sustainable finding of infringement or complicity” on Amazon’s part. It emphasized that mere ownership of the “Symbol” trademark did not make Amazon liable for acts committed by its licensee, Cloudtail.
Read also:- Supreme Court Clarifies Taxability of Printing Materials in Works Contracts under UP Trade Tax Act
Decision
Ultimately, the Supreme Court upheld the Delhi High Court’s stay on the ₹336 crore decree, refusing to interfere with its order. The bench ruled that the appeal shall proceed independently and that both sides are free to argue their case on merits at the final hearing.
With this, the apex court closed Lifestyle Equities’ petition, marking a significant precedent on how courts may handle ex parte decrees and conditional stays in commercial disputes.
Case Title: Lifestyle Equities C.V. & Anr. vs Amazon Technologies Inc.
Case Type: Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 19767 of 2025
Date of Judgment: September 24, 2025
