Karnataka High Court
Kannada Film Chamber Of Commerce vs District Registrar on 29 January, 2025
Author: Jyoti Mulimani
Bench: Jyoti Mulimani
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:4132
WP No. 15425 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI
WRIT PETITION NO. 15425 OF 2017 (GM-KSR)
BETWEEN:
KANNADA FILM CHAMBER OF COMMERCE,
NO.220, 3RD FLOOR, 6TH A CROSS,
ANANDA RAO LAYOUT, GANDHINAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 009.
REPRESENTED BY JOINT SECRETARY,
V.CHANDRASHEKAR.
...PETITIONER
(BY SMT. MEDINI RAO., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. DISTRICT REGISTRAR,
FOURTH ZONE,
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT,
8TH FLOOR, KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD COMPLEX,
CAUVERY BHAVAN, K.G.ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 009.
Digitally signed by
THEJASKUMAR N
Location: High 2. KARNATAKA FILM CHAMBER OF COMMERCE,
Court of Karnataka #28, 1ST MAIN, CRESCENT ROAD,
HIGH GROUNDS,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
REPRESENTED BY ITS HONORARY SECRETARY.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MAHANTESH SHETTAR., AGA FOR R1;
SRI. SHANMUKHAPPA., ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN
RELIEFS.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:4132
WP No. 15425 of 2017
THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS
UNDER:
ORAL ORDER
Ms.Medini Rao., counsel for the petitioner, AGA for
respondent No.1 and Sri.Tejesh K.Reddy., counsel on behalf of
Sri.Shanmukappa., for respondent No.2 have appeared in
person.
2. The short facts are these:
It is stated that the Kannada Film Chamber of Commerce
- petitioner was registered with the first respondent in the
name Karnataka Dubbing Film Chamber of Commerce in the
year 2015. The first respondent accepted the amendment of
the bye-law of the petitioner in regard to the name and it was
registered in the new name as Kannada Film Chamber of
Commerce.
As the matter stood thus, the second respondent
Karnataka Film Chamber of Commerce submitted an application
before the first respondent to cancel the order dated
06.01.2017 i.e., the amendment pursuant to which the
petitioner was registered in the new name 'Kannada Film
Chamber of Commerce' on the ground that it is identical to its
NC: 2025:KHC:4132
name and created confusion in the mind of general public in
particular film industry acting under Section 7 of the Act.
The first respondent initiated proceedings on the
aforesaid application and issued notice to the petitioner Society
to appear on 10.02.2017. It is contended that the said notice
was not served on the petitioner, but the office bearer of the
petitioner visited the office of the first respondent and accepted
the notice by hand after the hearing date on 10.02.2017. The
second respondent filed statement before the first respondent.
The petitioner appeared before the first respondent through its
advocate and filed statement of objection against the
application as well as statement filed by the second
respondent.
It is contended that on account of lawyer's strike, the
petitioner did not appear and Joint Secretary appeared in
person and submitted a memo along with photocopy of the
reported judgment in ILR 2003 (3) KAR 2906 and requested for
time, but the same was refused and the matter was posted for
orders on 07.04.2017. The petitioner filed the written argument
and the same was accepted by the first respondent. The first
respondent vide order dated 07.04.2017 passed an order
NC: 2025:KHC:4132
canceling/ withdrawing the amendment of bye-law with regard
to name. This order is called into question in this Writ Petition
on several grounds as set-out in the memorandum of Writ
Petition.
3. Counsel Ms.Medini Rao., in presenting her
arguments strenuously urged that the first respondent has
failed to appreciate that Section 7 of the Act does not confer a
power on the District Registrar to review the order. She argued
by saying that Section 7 of the Act provides that the Society is
not to be registered with undesirable names. She vehemently
contends that at the time of registration of society, if the
Registrar is of the opinion that the name of the Society is
undesirable as it resembles or identical with the name of the
society which is in existence and has been previously
registered, can refuse the registration of the society. Counsel
placed reliance on the decision in SHIMOGA ZILLA
MADIVALA SANGHA AND ANOTHER VS. THE DISTRICT
REGISTRAR, FOR SOCIETIES & ASSOCIATIONS,
SHIMOGA DISTRICT AND ANOTHER - ILR 2003 KAR
2906.
NC: 2025:KHC:4132
AGA for respondent No.1 and counsel for respondent No.2
justified the action of the first respondent in canceling/
withdrawing the amendment of bye-law with regard to the
name of the petitioner. They argued by saying that Section 7
bars registration of another society with an identical name.
They placed reliance on the decision in BENGALURU URBAN
ZILLA AMATEUR KABBADI ASSOCIATION (R) AND
OTHERS VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS - WP
NO.17533/2021 C/W. 22023/2021 disposed of on
17.10.2022. They submit that an appropriate order may be
passed.
4. Heard the arguments and perused the Writ papers
with care.
5. The issue revolves around a narrow compass and
relates to the registration of the Society with an identical name.
Suffice it to note that the second respondent was registered as
Karnataka Film Chamber of Commerce. Earlier the petitioner
was registered as Karnataka Dubbing Film Chamber of
Commerce. However, the same was amended as Kannada Film
Chamber of Commerce. A careful glance of the names of the
petitioner and the second respondent reflects that the amended
NC: 2025:KHC:4132
name of the petitioner is more or less identical/ resembles the
name of the second respondent which was already in existence
and was previously registered. A comparison reveals that they
are not too similar but are virtually the same. The name of the
petitioner Society nearly resembles the name of the second
respondent.
6. The law is well settled that once a society is
registered in a particular name, registration of a second society
with an identical name is impermissible. A duty casts on the
Registrar to verify whether the name is identical or resembles
the name by which the society in existence has been previously
registered. Taking note of the same, the District Registrar - first
respondent is justified in canceling/ withdrawing the
amendment of bye-law with regard to name of the petitioner. I
find no grounds to interfere with the order passed by the
District Registrar. The Writ Petition is devoid of merits and is
liable to be rejected.
7. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is rejected.
Sd/-
(JYOTI MULIMANI)
JUDGE
TKN
