Shabu KN Achary v. Dharampal Premchand Limited, 2026

The dispute arose out of a trademark infringement suit instituted by Dharampal Premchand Limited.

The plaintiff sought, among other reliefs, a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from infringing its trade dress and packaging.

The plaintiff also sought relief concerning its trademarks and claimed damages.

The plaintiff alleged that the defendant was using a brand name together with packaging and trade dress similar to those of the plaintiff.

The plaintiff specifically asserted infringement of its registered trademark and copyright.

During the proceedings, the defendant sought to cross-examine the plaintiff concerning the documentary basis for the plaintiff's claimed date of first use of the brand name "BABA."

The specific question sought to be put to the plaintiff was: "Is it correct that you have no document to show that since when mark BABA is being used?"

An objection was raised against the question on the ground that the defendant's written statement had not been taken on record.

The High Court accepted the objection and treated the question as falling outside the permissible scope of cross-examination.

The High Court directed that the disputed question be expunged from the record.

The defendant challenged the High Court's order before the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court examined whether the absence of the defendant's written statement prevented the defendant from questioning the plaintiff about documentary evidence concerning the period from which the plaintiff claimed to have used the disputed trademark.

The Supreme Court found that the question was directly connected with the plaintiff's own case concerning trademark infringement and its claimed use of the brand.

The Court therefore held that the defendant was entitled to put the question in cross-examination.

The Supreme Court clarified that permitting the question did not amount to deciding the merits of the trademark dispute.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by the defendant.

The Court set aside the impugned order of the High Court.

The Supreme Court held that the High Court had adopted an untenable approach in preventing the defendant from putting the disputed question during cross-examination.

The Court observed that the plaintiff itself had placed trademark infringement at the centre of its case.

Since the plaintiff had asserted that the defendant was using a similar brand name, packaging and trade dress and was infringing its registered trademark and copyright, the defendant was entitled to test the plaintiff's assertions through cross-examination.

The Court specifically held that the defendant could question the plaintiff regarding documents establishing when the plaintiff first began using the brand name.

The absence of the defendant's written statement did not, by itself, prevent such a question from being asked.

The Supreme Court therefore directed that the trial should proceed after recalling the plaintiff.

The plaintiff was to be recalled so that an answer to the disputed question could be recorded.

The Court made it clear that its order was confined to the permissibility of the cross-examination question.

The Court did not determine whether the plaintiff or defendant ultimately possessed the better trademark claim.

The parties remained free to place their respective contentions before the trial court.

The appeal was consequently allowed.

Court's reasoning: The Supreme Court focused on the connection between the proposed question and the plaintiff's own case. Since the plaintiff alleged infringement of its trademark and asserted rights arising from its use of the brand, the defendant was entitled to test the factual and documentary foundation of those assertions.

Cross-examination as a testing mechanism: Cross-examination is an important mechanism through which a party tests the truth, accuracy and evidentiary basis of the opposing party's testimony. A relevant question cannot ordinarily be excluded merely because it may be inconvenient to the party being questioned.

Relevance to trademark disputes: The timing of first use can be significant in trademark litigation. Evidence concerning when a mark was first adopted or used may bear upon competing claims concerning priority, goodwill and the strength of the parties' respective rights.

Plaintiff's own case: The Supreme Court placed particular emphasis on the fact that the plaintiff itself had alleged trademark infringement. The defendant's question was therefore not disconnected from the litigation; it directly sought to test the evidentiary foundation of the plaintiff's claim.

Written statement not an absolute barrier: The judgment rejects an overly technical approach under which the absence of a defendant's written statement automatically prevents relevant cross-examination. The Court focused instead on whether the question was relevant to the case and the assertions made by the plaintiff.

Procedural fairness: Allowing the question promotes procedural fairness by permitting the defendant to challenge the evidentiary basis of the plaintiff's assertions. Preventing such questioning could potentially allow an important factual assertion to remain insufficiently tested.

Distinction between questioning and deciding: A particularly important aspect of the judgment is the distinction between allowing a question to be asked and accepting the answer as proof. The Supreme Court only held that the question was permissible. It did not decide whether the plaintiff actually possessed documentary evidence proving its claimed date of first use.

No adjudication on merits: The Court expressly preserved the parties' substantive rights and arguments. The trial court remains responsible for determining the ultimate trademark dispute after evaluating the complete evidence.

Judicial restraint: The Supreme Court avoided deciding the underlying trademark controversy at the interlocutory/procedural stage. This demonstrates judicial restraint and ensures that the trial court can determine the merits based on the complete evidentiary record.

Importance of documentary evidence: The case highlights the importance of documentary records in trademark disputes, particularly where a party claims a particular date from which a mark has been used. The existence, authenticity and relevance of such documents can become important matters for examination and cross-examination.

Impact on civil procedure: The decision supports a substantive approach to procedural questions. Procedural rules concerning pleadings and evidence should not be applied mechanically so as to prevent a party from testing an assertion that is directly relevant to the opponent's own case.

Limits of the ruling: The judgment should not be interpreted as giving defendants unrestricted freedom to introduce unpleaded defences through cross-examination. The question must remain relevant to the issues and assertions arising in the litigation.

Practical significance: In trademark litigation, parties should be prepared to substantiate claims concerning first use, continuous use, registration, goodwill and documentary records. A party asserting trademark rights may be required to explain and support the documentary basis for its claimed history of use.

Broader legal principle: The decision reinforces the principle that procedural objections should not unnecessarily prevent relevant evidence from being tested. Courts must balance procedural discipline with the fundamental purpose of a trial—to determine the parties' rights on the basis of properly tested evidence.