Shabu KN Acharyv.Dharampal Premchand Limited

Supreme Court Holds Defendant Can Cross-Examine Plaintiff on Brand Name Even Without Written Statement on Record

Case Snapshot

Case Name: Shabu KN Achary v. Dharampal Premchand Limited

Citation: 2026 INSC 819

Bench: Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran

Date of Judgment: August 7, 2026

Area of Law: Civil Procedure, Evidence Law, Trademark Infringement

The Judgment in One Line

Defendant is entitled to cross-examine the plaintiff on the brand name assertion even if the written statement is not on record, as it goes to the foundation of the infringement claim.

Why This Judgment Matters

This judgment clarifies the rights of a defendant in a trademark infringement suit regarding cross-examination, even when the written statement has not been taken on record. The Supreme Court held that the mere absence of a written statement does not bar a defendant from questioning the plaintiff about the foundational facts of the claim—particularly the usage and documentation of the asserted brand name. The judgment protects the defendant's right to test the plaintiff's case through cross-examination and prevents courts from restricting cross-examination on purely procedural grounds.

Background

The plaintiff filed a suit seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendant from infringing its trade dress, a declaration that its trademarks are exclusive marks, and damages. The defendant sought to cross-examine the plaintiff on the brand name asserted by the plaintiff, which was the foundation of the damages claim. Specifically, the defendant asked: "Is it correct that you have no document to show that since when mark BABA is being used?"

The High Court expunged the question, holding that it was a purely factual question beyond permissible cross-examination, especially since the defendant's written statement was not on record. The defendant appealed to the Supreme Court.

Issues Before the Court

1. Whether a defendant whose written statement is not on record is entitled to cross-examine the plaintiff on the brand name asserted.

2. Whether the question regarding documentation of the brand name usage was beyond permissible cross-examination.

3. Whether the High Court was correct in expunging the question on procedural grounds.

What Did the Supreme Court Hold?

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and directed the trial to proceed after recalling the plaintiff for cross-examination. The Court's reasoning was clear and principled:

Written Statement Not a Bar to Cross-Examination: The Court held that the mere fact that the defendant's written statement was not on record did not deprive him of the right to cross-examine the plaintiff on the brand name. Cross-examination is a fundamental right to test the plaintiff's case, and it cannot be curtailed on procedural grounds alone.

Question Goes to the Foundation of the Claim: The plaintiff's prayer for injunction and damages was based on infringement of the brand name and trade dress. The defendant's question—asking whether the plaintiff had any document to show since when the mark BABA was being used—directly went to the foundation of the claim. If the plaintiff could not substantiate the usage of the brand name, it would affect the claim of exclusive rights.

Affidavit Itself Raised the Issue: The plaintiff's affidavit accompanying the prayer for injunction specifically spoke of the defendant using the brand name with similar packaging/trade dress. The plaintiff also asserted infringement of registered copyright and trademark. This made the question about documentation of the brand name usage relevant and permissible.

No Observations on Merits: The Court clarified that it had not made any observations on the merits of the matter. The parties would be entitled to agitate their respective contentions in the trial. The Court only decided the procedural issue of whether the question could be put.

Trial to Proceed: The Court directed the trial to proceed after recalling the plaintiff and recording his answer to the question. The High Court's order expunging the question was reversed.

Key Legal Principles

1. Right to cross-examination is fundamental — a defendant is entitled to cross-examine the plaintiff on the foundational facts of the claim, even if the written statement is not on record.

2. Cross-examination cannot be curtailed on procedural grounds — the mere absence of a written statement does not bar a defendant from questioning the plaintiff.

3. Questions going to the foundation of the claim are permissible — if the claim is based on brand name usage and infringement, questions about documentation of that usage are relevant.

4. Affidavit itself can be the basis for cross-examination — if the plaintiff's affidavit raises issues, the defendant can cross-examine on those issues.

5. Courts should not restrict cross-examination lightly — cross-examination is a valuable right to test the plaintiff's case; it should not be expunged unless clearly irrelevant or vexatious.

6. No observations on merits — the Court's order does not affect the merits of the case; the trial court will decide on the merits.

Important Precedents

The judgment did not cite specific precedents but relied on the general principles of cross-examination and procedural fairness.

Practical Impact

For advocates: This judgment is crucial when defending against claims where the written statement has not been taken on record. It establishes that cross-examination on foundational facts—such as the usage and documentation of a brand name—is permissible regardless of the procedural status. Advocates should not be deterred from cross-examining plaintiffs on the basis of a written statement.

For future litigation: The judgment reinforces that cross-examination is a substantive right that cannot be curtailed on procedural grounds. Courts will now be more cautious in restricting cross-examination, particularly in trademark infringement suits where the usage of the brand name is central to the claim.

May be cited: In any case where a court restricts cross-examination on procedural grounds, particularly in trademark infringement suits.

Lawcurb Quick Insight

The Court's reasoning is simple but powerful: if the plaintiff claims trademark infringement, the defendant must be allowed to test whether the plaintiff actually has documents proving usage of the brand name. Procedural technicalities cannot shield the plaintiff from cross-examination.

Lawcurb Practice Note

When defending trademark infringement suits, even if the written statement is not on record, ensure that cross-examination covers the foundational facts—particularly documentation of brand name usage. Cite this judgment to resist any attempt to restrict cross-examination on procedural grounds.

Remember This Ratio

A defendant can cross-examine the plaintiff on brand name usage even if the written statement is not on record, as it goes to the foundation of the infringement claim.

Exam Lens

Q: Can a defendant cross-examine the plaintiff on foundational facts if the written statement is not on record? A: Yes. The right to cross-examination is fundamental and cannot be curtailed on procedural grounds alone. If the claim is based on brand name usage and infringement, the defendant is entitled to question the plaintiff about documentation of that usage.

Q: What is the significance of the plaintiff's affidavit in cross-examination? A: If the plaintiff's affidavit raises issues—such as infringement of registered copyright and trademark—the defendant can cross-examine on those issues. The affidavit itself provides a basis for cross-examination.

Q: When can a court restrict cross-examination? A: Courts should restrict cross-examination only when the questions are clearly irrelevant, vexatious, or intended to harass. Questions going to the foundation of the claim are permissible and should not be expunged.

Final Outcome

• Appeal allowed — the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order.

• Cross-examination permitted — the defendant is entitled to put the question regarding documentation of the brand name usage.

• Trial to proceed — the plaintiff shall be recalled and his answer recorded.

• No observations on merits — the Court's order does not affect the merits of the case.

• No costs — pending applications disposed of.

Lawcurb Verdict

This judgment is a significant affirmation of the right to cross-examination in civil proceedings. By holding that a defendant can question the plaintiff on the brand name usage even without a written statement on record, the Court has protected the defendant's right to test the plaintiff's case. The judgment prevents procedural technicalities from shielding plaintiffs from scrutiny. A timely reminder that cross-examination is a substantive right, not a procedural formality.

This report is prepared by Lawcurb for educational and informational purposes only. It is a concise summary of the judgment and should not be construed as legal advice. Readers are encouraged to refer to the original judgment before relying on any legal proposition.