The Bombay High Court has directed police authorities in Haryana to provide full protection to a court-appointed receiver and representatives of Unilever Plc while executing an earlier trademark enforcement order. The direction came after the court was informed that members of the execution team were allegedly assaulted during a visit to a premises where counterfeit consumer goods were suspected to be stored.
Background of the Case
The matter arose in a commercial intellectual property dispute filed by Unilever Plc against Ashok Kumar. According to a report submitted by Additional Special Receiver Advocate Harshwardhan Joshi, he visited a premises in Ambala district to execute a court order authorizing the seizure and sealing of allegedly infringing goods.
The receiver stated that, during the operation, a large quantity of products bearing Unilever brands and packaging were found at the site. The report further alleged that while the identified goods were being loaded for seizure, a group of individuals arrived and allegedly obstructed the process.
Court's Observations
Justice Shreeram V. Shirsat described the allegations placed before the court as an “extremely sorry state of affairs.” Referring to the receiver's report, medical records and photographs placed on record, the court noted that there was prima facie material suggesting that the Additional Special Receiver and persons accompanying him had been assaulted during the execution of the court's order.
The bench expressed concern over repeated instances where court-appointed officers faced resistance while carrying out judicial orders.
“The rule of law has to prevail. Majesty of law must be upheld at all costs,” the court observed.
The court also took note of allegations that requests for further police protection were not adequately responded to after the incident and observed that the matter affected not only the safety of officers acting under authority of law but also the integrity of judicial enforcement proceedings.
Directions Issued by the Court
The High Court directed the Superintendent of Police and the Station House Officer concerned to ensure adequate police protection for the Additional Special Receiver and representatives of the plaintiff whenever they visit the premises to execute the court's earlier orders. The protection is to include sufficient personnel, including women police officers if required, so that the order can be implemented effectively.
The court further directed that if the goods are found to have been shifted to another location, similar protection must be extended for execution proceedings at the new site as well. Police assistance is to be provided without cost for the entire period required for execution of the court's orders.
Decision
The High Court ordered the Superintendent of Police to take action in accordance with law regarding the alleged assault on the Additional Special Receiver and the plaintiff's representatives and to submit a report before the court on the action taken. The court also expected the concerned police officials to personally ensure proper execution of its earlier orders so that there is no impact on the administration of justice.
The matter has been listed for further hearing on June 24, 2026.
Case Details:
Case Title: Unilever Plc v. Ashok Kumar
Case Number: Interim Application (L) No. 36579 of 2025 in Commercial IP Suit (L) No. 36456 of 2025
Judge: Justice Shreeram V. Shirsat
Decision Date: May 29, 2026
