Police Directed to Ensure Adequate Protection for Court-Appointed Receiver Amid Counterfeiting Crackdown
In a recent judgment, the Bombay High Court has issued stringent directives to law enforcement authorities following a violent assault on a court-appointed receiver during the execution of a judicial order. The incident occurred on May 21, 2026, when Mr. Harshwardhan Joshi, the Additional Special Receiver, and representatives of Unilever PLC were attacked while carrying out a court order to seize counterfeit goods bearing the plaintiff's trademark.
The court-appointed receiver was executing an order passed on November 24, 2025, which authorized the sealing and seizure of counterfeit goods used by the defendants in their business operations. The operation, however, was violently disrupted by Mr. Neeraj Kumar Ahuja and his accomplices, who assaulted the receiver and obstructed the enforcement proceedings.
The court has taken serious note of this obstruction to justice, directing the Superintendent of Police (SP) and the Station House Officer (SHO) to provide adequate police protection to the receiver and the plaintiff's representatives. The court emphasized the need to uphold the rule of law and prevent individuals from taking the law into their own hands.
In a detailed report filed by the receiver, it was revealed that a significant quantity of counterfeit goods, including well-known brands like POND'S and Dove, were discovered at the defendant's premises. Despite police presence, the execution team was physically assaulted, and the counterfeit goods were unlawfully removed from custody by the offenders.
The judgment mandates the SP and SHO to ensure police protection is provided at no cost until the execution of the court order is completed. Additionally, the SP has been instructed to take legal action against the perpetrators of the assault and submit a report on the actions taken to the court.
The court has also directed that if the goods have been relocated, necessary protection should be provided to the receiver and the plaintiff's representatives to enforce the order at the new location.
The judgment underscores the court's commitment to maintaining the integrity of judicial processes and ensuring that court orders are executed without obstruction. The court has set the next hearing for June 24, 2026, to review compliance with its directives and the actions taken against the offenders.
Bottom line:-
Enforcement of judicial orders - Assault on court-appointed receiver and obstruction in execution of judicially sanctioned enforcement proceedings - SP and SHO directed to ensure adequate police protection and take serious action against offenders.
Statutory provision(s):
- Order XL Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
- Order XXXIX Rule 7, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Unilever PLC v. Ashok Kumar, (Bombay) : Law Finder Doc id # 2910559
