Punjab & Haryana High Court’s Recent Judgments Shape Legal Landscape on Trademark, Criminal Procedure, and Accountability

CHANDIGARH – A series of significant rulings from the Punjab & Haryana High Court in recent weeks have provided critical clarity on diverse legal issues, spanning from the nuances of intellectual property injunctions and the sanctity of public duty in criminal law to the oversight of sensitive police investigations. These judgments, coupled with a key directive from the National Green Tribunal, offer vital insights for legal practitioners, corporations, and state bodies, setting important precedents for future litigation.

This comprehensive legal dispatch examines four pivotal developments, analyzing their implications on trademark law, criminal procedure, environmental enforcement, and institutional accountability.

---

High Court Stays Injunction in "Kashmyr" vs. "Cashmir" Liquor Trademark Battle

In a notable development for intellectual property law, a Division Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court has stayed a commercial court's injunction that had previously barred Radico Khaitan Ltd. from using the mark "Kashmyr" for its liquor products. The original injunction was granted in a trademark suit filed by Picadilly Agro Industries Ltd., the proprietor of the marks “Cashmir” and “Cashmere.”

The Bench, comprising Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Rohit Kapoor, passed the interim order on October 9, 2025, pressing pause on the Commercial Court, Karnal's decision. The stay will remain in effect until the next hearing, scheduled for November 13, 2025.

Background of the Dispute

The legal tussle began when Picadilly Agro, which manufactures Indian Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL), sought to protect its marks "Cashmere," for which it obtained registration in 2015, and "Cashmir," for which a registration application is pending. Picadilly claimed to have launched its premium vodka under the "Cashmir" brand in May 2025.

The suit was triggered by Radico Khaitan’s launch of its vodka under the phonetically similar brand "Kashmyr" in July 2025. Picadilly argued that the similarity in names was likely to cause consumer confusion and successfully obtained an ex-parte injunction from the Karnal Commercial Court.

Radico Khaitan’s Appeal and Jurisdictional Challenge

Represented by a formidable legal team led by Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, Radico Khaitan mounted a strong challenge to the injunction on several grounds. The primary contention was the lack of territorial jurisdiction. Radico argued that it neither manufactures nor sells its "Kashmyr" products in Haryana and does not hold an excise license in the state, thereby questioning how a cause of action could arise within the jurisdiction of the Karnal court.

Furthermore, the appellant highlighted that Picadilly Agro's mark "Cashmir" was still pending registration, arguing the Commercial Court had erred in presuming it to be a registered mark while granting injunctive relief.

The High Court's Observations

The Division Bench identified several "triable issues" that warrant deeper consideration. These include: - Whether any part of the cause of action actually arose within Haryana to grant the Karnal court jurisdiction. - Whether the marks "Kashmyr" and "Cashmir," along with their respective bottle designs and trade dress, are deceptively similar. - Whether Picadilly Agro can validly claim prior use of the mark in the market. - Whether the lower court could have protected the respondent’s interests through less restrictive measures than a blanket injunction.

By staying the injunction, the High Court has signaled that preliminary injunctive relief in trademark cases requires a robust establishment of not just prima facie similarity but also foundational elements like jurisdiction and the plaintiff's established rights. The case, Radico Khaitan Ltd. v. Picadilly Agro Industries Ltd. (FAO-COM-17-2025), now stands as a key matter to watch for its potential impact on trademark litigation strategy.

---

No Compromise in Cases of Assault on Public Servants on Duty, Rules High Court

In a significant ruling that reinforces the distinction between private disputes and offences against the State, the Punjab & Haryana High Court has held that an FIR for an assault on a public servant discharging official duties cannot be quashed on the basis of a compromise.

Justice Sumeet Goel, while dismissing a plea to quash an FIR, articulated a clear legal principle: an offence against an on-duty public servant is a "tripartite matter" involving the accused, the public servant, and the State. This makes it impervious to private settlement.

"When a person commits an offence against a public servant - on - duty, it becomes a tripartite matter, even in the realm of compromise quashing jurisdiction," Justice Goel observed. "A public servant works not just as a representative but epitomises the State while on - duty. His official status is not contingent but indispensable, nonelective and sine qua non."

The case, Inderjeet Suhag and another v. State of Haryana and others , involved linemen of an electricity department who were allegedly obstructed, abused, and assaulted by villagers while on duty. The accused later sought to have the FIR quashed, citing a compromise deed.

The Court, referencing a catena of Supreme Court judgments, including Gian Singh v. State of Punjab , emphasized that the inherent power of the High Court to quash proceedings under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) (analogous to Section 482 Cr.P.C.) should be exercised with caution, especially when public interest is at stake.

Departmental Sanction Required for Settlement

Crucially, the Court went a step further, stating that a public servant cannot unilaterally decide to compromise a criminal case arising from their official duties without permission from their department.

"A public servant, once having got registered an FIR etc. in his capacity of a government official, cannot elect to settle a dispute with an individual, on his own without requisite permission from the concerned Government authority," the judgment read.

The Court directed the administrative secretary of the concerned department to investigate the settlement entered into by the employees and take appropriate action, warning that public servants who attempt to settle such cases without approval "ought to be saddled with punitive measure(s)." This judgment serves as a stern reminder of the legal gravity of obstructing public officials and establishes a procedural safeguard against the trivialization of such offences.

---

High Court Seeks Status Report in IPS Officer's Suicide Probe

The High Court has also turned its focus to the sensitive investigation into the alleged suicide of senior Haryana IPS officer Y Puran. A bench led by Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sanjiv Berry has directed the Chandigarh Police to submit a status report on the probe's progress.

"What is the latest position in the stage of investigation. Where have you reached, whether you have named someday or not. It has been more than a month," the Chief Justice questioned, setting the next hearing for November 12.

The court was hearing a plea filed by an NGO President demanding an independent investigation, citing concerns over a potential conflict of interest. The deceased officer left a suicide note that reportedly named several high-ranking IPS and IAS officers, alleging caste-based discrimination and harassment. The petitioner argued that the Chandigarh Police, given its administrative links with Haryana, may not be able to conduct a fully impartial inquiry. The High Court's active monitoring of the investigation underscores its commitment to ensuring accountability and transparency, particularly when serious allegations are leveled against senior officials within the state machinery.

---

NGT Orders Coordinated Action Against Polluting Industries

Meanwhile, on the environmental front, the Principal Bench of the National Green Tribunal (NGT) has issued stringent directives to the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) and State Pollution Control Boards (SPCBs) of Uttar Pradesh, Haryana, Bihar, and Delhi. The order mandates prompt action against Grossly Polluting Industries (GPIs) that have failed to install mandatory Online Continuous Effluent Monitoring Systems (OCEMS).

The Tribunal, led by Chairperson Justice Prakash Shrivastava, was acting on an application alleging that nearly 1,700 GPIs were discharging untreated effluents into major rivers like the Ganga and Yamuna. The NGT directed the CPCB Chairman to consider the applicant's representation and issue necessary directions to the state bodies.

The Member Secretaries of the concerned SPCBs have been ordered to submit a compliance report to the CPCB within two months, following which the CPCB must take "remedial and punitive action" against defaulting units within a month. This order reinforces the critical role of technology in environmental monitoring and signals a zero-tolerance approach towards non-compliant industries, holding both polluters and regulators accountable for protecting the nation's vital water resources.