Primary sources · Judgment
SHABU KN ACHARY VS. DHARAMPAL PREMCHAND LIMITED
2026 INSC 819Non-Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Civil Appeal No. 10260 of 2026
(Arising out of SLP (C) No.26887 of 2026)
SHABU KN ACHARY …. APPELLANT (S)
Versus
DHARAMPAL PREMCHAND LIMITED . RESPONDENT(S)
O R D E R
Leave granted.
2. The short question arising in the above case is as to
whether the defendant, the appellant herein, was entitled
to put a question with respect to the brand name asserted
by the plaintiff, infringement of which was the foundation
of the relief of damages claimed by the plaintiff in the suit.
3. The High Court finding the question to be a purely
factual question beyond the permissible cross-
examination; since the defendant’s written statement was
not taken on record, expunged it from the record.
4. We have heard Sri Ankur Chhibber, learned Senior
Counsel for the appellant and Sri Gagan Gupta, learned
Page 1 of 3
Senior Counsel for the respondent.
5. The prayers in the suit, produced along with the
memorandum as Annexure P-1 are multifarious. Inter alia
plaintiff seeks permanent injunction restraining the
defendant from infringing the trade-dress used by the
plaintiff in its product in any manner, declaration that the
two trademarks are the exclusive marks of the plaintiff,
within the meaning of Section 2(1)(zg) read with Section
11 (6) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, as also damages.
6. The specific contention raised was that the
defendant’s written statement not being on record, he was
not entitled to put that question. We are unable to agree.
The disputed question as such, is seen thus:
‘Is it correct that you have no document to show
that since when mark BABA is being used?’
7. We need only notice the affidavit of the plaintiff
accompanying the prayer for injunction which specifically
speaks of the defendant using the brand name of the
plaintiff with a similar packaging/trade-dress, which is
identical to the unique trade dress and packaging of the
plaintiff’s product. The averments also are with respect to
infringement of the plaintiff’s registered copyright and
trademark, as we noticed hereinabove.
Page 2 of 3
8. When the plaintiff affirms trademark infringement,
even if the written statement is not on record, the
defendant is entitled to put the question which queries the
plaintiff on the document, to substantiate the time from
which such brand name was used by the plaintiff.
9. On the above reasoning, we reverse the impugned
order of the High Court and direct the trial to be proceeded
with after recalling the plaintiff and recording his answer.
10. We make it clear that we have not made any
observations on the merits of the matter and the parties
would be entitled to agitate their respective contentions in
the trial.
11. The appeal is allowed.
12. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
.……………………………... J.
(J. B. PARDIWALA)
..………….…………………. J.
(K. VINOD CHANDRAN)
NEW DELHI;
AUGUST 07, 2026.
Page 3 of 3