Madras High Court
M/S.Raymond Pharmaceuticals ... vs Union Of India on 2 December, 2022
W.P.No.28593 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 02.12.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR
W.P.No.28593 of 2012
and M.P.Nos.1 & 2 of 2012
M/s.Raymond Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd.,
4/19, 2nd Street, Dr.Radhakrishnan Nagar,
Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai - 600 041,
Represented by its Director,
Mrs.Sunitha Khanna .. Petitioner
Vs.
1. Union of India,
Represented by its Secretary to Government,
Ministry of Corporate Affairs,
Nirman Bhavan, New Delhi - 110 011.
2. The Regional Director,
Ministry of Corporate Affairs,
Southern Region, Haddows Road,
Shastri Bhawan, Chennai - 600 006.
3. M/s.Raymond Limited,
Regd.Office Plot No.156/H No.2,
Village Zadgaon, Ratnagiri,
Maharashtra - 451 612 and
H.O. New Hind House Narottam,
Morarji Marg, Ballard Estate,
Mumbai - 400 001. .. Respondents
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/28
W.P.No.28593 of 2012
Prayer : Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India seeking a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records connected with the
impugned order dated 17.07.2022 in REF.No.4/22/M-8/2010, passed by the
2nd respondent herein and quash the same as not sustainable in law.
For Petitioner : Mr.N.Viswanathan
For Respondents 1 & 2 : No appearance
For Respondent 3 : Mr.T.K.Bhaskar
-----
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed challenging the order of the second
respondent dated 17.07.2012, passed under Section 22 of the Companies Act,
1956 directing the petitioner to change the name of its registered company
within a period of three months from the date of the said order.
2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the writ petition is as follows:
(i) The petitioner is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act,
1956 as early as on 31.03.1983, in Karnataka and later shifted the registered
office to Chennai, Tamilnadu in the year 1988.
(ii) The petitioner company is primarily engaged in manufacturing and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.28593 of 2012
trading of pharmaceutical products/drugs under various trade names and also
acting as contract manufacturer of drugs and formulations for the last 29 years
having its manufacturing unit located at B-21, SIDCO Pharmaceutical
Complex Athur Tiporrur near Chennai in the state of Tamil Nadu. The
petitioner company has been marketing its goods under a brand name/trade
name duly registered with the appropriate authority under the Trade Marks
Act. The trade mark registration has been obtained by the company for its
product since 2003.
(iii) The petitioner company was named as Raymond Pharmaceutical
Private Limited, on the understanding that it is a common Christian name and
as per the Reader's Digest Great Encyclopedic Dictionary the word meant
"mighty protection". Initially the representative of the petitioner company
addressed a communication dated 23.07.82 to the Registrar of Company,
Karnataka suggesting three words to be prefixed namely "Raymond"
"Osmond" and "Esmond" all being Christian name having an identical
meaning namely "Mighty name" or "God's protection". They received a reply
dated 19.08.82 from the said authority informing the petitioner that there does
not appear to be any objection to the registration of the company by the name
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.28593 of 2012
"Raymond", and accordingly the petitioner company filed necessary
application under the Companies Act, and got it registered on 21.03.1983 with
the name "Raymond Pharmaceutical Private Limited".
(iv) The petitioner ever since was carrying on its business
uninterruptedly till they received a notice dated 03.10.2005 from the 3rd
respondent and that too after 23 years of its existence. Many of their products
being periodically advertised in various periodicals and journals. The use of
the word "Raymond" by the petitioner company as pan of its corporate name
trading style without the express authority/knowledge on its letterheads,
invoices, receipts other stationeries, various medical preparations,
advertisements at a merchant and/or manufacturer of such products, thereby
creating an impression that these products are somehow connected or owned
or licensed by the 3rd respondent herein and that in or about September 2005
it has also been brought to the knowledge of the said company that the
Registrar of Trade Mark had published in the Trade Mark Journal No:1327
Suppl (4), dated 24.01.2005 and to desist from using the word "Raymond" by
the petitioner company.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.28593 of 2012
(v) Perusal of the said notice clearly revealed that the 3rd respondent
had on its own had knowledge of the fact of the petitioner company using the
name "Raymond" as its corporate name through the product manufactured and
traded by it as well as the advertisement published by it in the
periodicals/journals but also was informed of the publication of an
advertisement made in the journal published in January 2005 by the Trade
Mark authorities of the fact of the petitioner filing an application seeking the
registration of a trade mark, which it claimed was brought to its knowledge in
September 2005.
(vi) The 3rd respondent herein consequent to the reply sent by the
petitioner aforementioned filed original suit dated 26.12.2005 before the
Bombay High Court in O.S.No.436/2006 against the petitioner company
seeking a perpetual order of injunction from any manner manufacturing,
marketing, selling, offering for sale, supplying, advertising or using in any
manner or otherwise dealing with in relation to the word/mark "Raymond" or
any other mark identical with or deceptively similar to the registered trade
mark and copyright held by it. The petitioner was not sure of the date of
acquiring the said knowledge and that there is every possibility of its getting
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.28593 of 2012
the said knowledge even on a date prior to 12.09.2005.
(vii) The Bombay High Court in the above suit passed orders on
15.02.2007 dismissing the said notice of motion holding the same to be devoid
of any merits. The 3rd respondent filed an appeal against the said order, which
also came to be dismissed. Thereafter the 3rd respondent moved a petition for
special leave to Appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court which also after
hearing the counsels for the 3rd respondent herein refused to interfere with the
judgment of the Bombay High Court.
(viii) The 3rd respondent after being unsuccessful in its attempt to resist
the petitioner company from using the word "Raymond" before the Bombay
High Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court, belatedly filed an application on
13.09.2010 under Sections 20 & 22 of the Companies Act before the 2
respondent herein seeking rectification of the name of the petitioner company
so as to remove the word "Raymond" there from.
(ix) In the said application, the 3rd respondent after adverting to the
various facts narrated above claimed for the first time that it came in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.28593 of 2012
knowledge of the fact that the Petitioner company was using the word
"Raymond" in its corporate through an email dated 12.09.2005 and claimed to
be received on 13.09.2005 and accordingly contended that it has fulfilled the
conditions of limitation imposed under Section 22 of the Companies Act by
filing application on the last date.
(x) The petitioner sent its reply on 06.01.2011 to the 2nd respondent
opposing the application moved by the 3rd respondent. The 2nd respondent
without considering any of the factual and legal submissions made by the
petitioner and without even verifying the correctness of the claim made by the
3rd respondent, passed the impugned order dated 17.07.2012 directing the
petitioner to change its name within three months from the date of the order as
per the procedure laid down under the Companies Act. The impugned order
passed by the 2nd respondent has put the petitioner company to a
disadvantageous potion since it was deprived of the good will earned for over
30 years in the pharmaceutical industry apart from causing severe and
irreparable loss to it. Hence, challenging the same the petitioner has filed this
writ petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.28593 of 2012
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that
the order of the second respondent is not maintainable in the eye of law. The
3rd respondent has in fact filed a suit for infringement before the Bombay
High Court and sought an injunction on the ground of infringement of Trade
Mark "Raymond". A learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court has also
held that the use of the mark "Raymond" by the petitioner herein was not
detrimental to the 3rd respondent's rights in the name/mark "Raymond" and
thus the 3rd respondent's contentions have been totally ignored. Aggrieved
over the same, the 3rd respondent filed an appeal and the Division Bench of
the Bombay High Court has dismissed the said appeal and upheld the order of
the learned Single Judge. Thereafter a Special Leave Petition has been
preferred by the 3rd respondent before the Hon'ble Apex Court and the same
was also dismissed.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submitted
that in the same subject matter reiterating similar facts an application has been
filed under the Companies Act for rectification, which has been considered by
the second respondent. The second respondent has not recorded any finding
that the name of the petitioner company is identical or too merely resembles
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.28593 of 2012
the trademark owned by the 3rd respondent, however passed the impugned
order dated 17.07.2012, against the petitioner. As the petitioner company is
only a private limited company and do not attract any investment from the
general public, to hold that the name "Raymond" as a prefix to the petitioner's
company name result in misleading the general public.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submitted
that the second respondent ought to have held that the provisions contained in
Section 22 of the Companies Act, cannot be extended beyond the right
available to them in terms of Section 29(5) of the Trade Marks Act viz., the
right on the goods and services for which the trade mark has been registered in
their name.
6. It is further contended by the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner that proviso contained in Section 22(1) read with Sub Section ii(b)
of the Companies Act only provided a maximum of 12 months of a company's
first registration or from the date of commencement of the Act whichever is
later, the period of 5 years provided under the proviso cannot be interpreted so
as to direct any company to change its name even after 29 years of its
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.28593 of 2012
existence holding the same name, as it would otherwise lead to any person
claiming knowledge within short span of time to extinguish the vested right
available to such companies.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the
proviso to Section 22 of the Companies Act having only spoken about the date
of notice of the registration of the company and not knowledge of the
existence of the company and therefore the alleged knowledge through the
purported email dated 12.09.2005 should not have been considered by the
authorities. At any event, it is his contention that the application ought to have
been filed within 5 years from the date of such knowledge, whereas, the
application has been filed beyond the period of limitation and therefore the
said application is not maintainable. Hence, according to the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner, the impugned order dated 17.07.2012, of the
second respondent has to be set aside. In support of his submissions, the
learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied on the following judgments:
(i) Congruent Info-tech Pvt Ltd., Vs. The Regional Director,
Southern Region, Ministry of Company Affairs in W.P.No.40035 of 2005
dated 16.10.2019.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.28593 of 2012
(ii) Maharashtra Housing Development Authority Vs. Shapoorji
Pallonji and Company Private Limited reported in (2018) 3 SCC 13.
8. Whereas, the learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent
submitted that civil proceedings is pending between the parties in respect of
the trademark relating to goods and services, whereas Sections 22 and 20 of
the Companies Act and Section 29 of the Trademarks Act operate under
different spear. Therefore, mere pendency of the civil suit will not be a bar to
exercise the power conferred under the Statute namely the Companies Act.
Therefore, the learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent would submit
that the application has been filed to rectify the same within a period of five
years. Since the last date of limitation being a Sunday, the application has
been filed on the following working day i.e. on Monday, which has been
properly considered by the 2nd respondent. Therefore, according to the
learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent, the contention of the writ
petitioner that the application is barred by limitation has no legs to stand. In
support of his submissions, the learned counsel appearing for the 3rd
respondent relied on the following judgments:
(i) State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Anshuman Shukla reported in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.28593 of 2012
(2008) 7 SCC 487.
(ii) Surya Elevator and Escalators India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Union of India
reported in (2013) 177 Comp Cas 230 (Karn).
(iii) Montari Overseas Ltd. Vs. Montari Industries Ltd. reported in
ILR 1997 Delhi 64.
(iv) K.G.Khosla Compressors Ltd., Vs. Khosla Extraktions Ltd.
reported in AIR 1986 Delhi 181.
(v) CGMP Pharmaplan Pvt. Ltd., Regional Director reported in
MANU/DE/2116/2010.
(vi) Mondelez Foods Private Limited Vs. The Regional Director
reported in (2017) 204 Comp Cas 169.
9. I have heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and also
perused the entire materials available on record carefully.
10. Challenge has been made to the impugned order dated 17.07.2012
passed by the second respondent, under Section 22 of the Companies Act
directing the petitioner viz. "Raymond Pharmaceuticals Private Limited"
registered in the State of Tamil Nadu, Chennai to change its name within a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.28593 of 2012
period of three months from the date of the said order.
11. The 3rd respondent has filed an application claiming that the writ
petitioner has registered his company in the name "Raymond Pharmaceuticals
Private Limited" in the State of Tamil Nadu much after the registration of the
trademark of the 3rd respondent. The third respondent was original
incorporated in the year 1925 under the Companies Act, 1913 in the name
"The Raymond Woollen Mills Limited" having its registered office at 'Plot
No.156/H.No.2, Village Zadgaon, Ratnagiri - 415 612, Maharashtra. It
appears that subsequently the 3rd respondent changed its name as "Raymond
Limited" with effect from 31.03.1995. Thereafter, the 3rd respondent is the
registered proprietor of the mark "Raymond" in Indian and abroad. In India it
has registered the mark "Raymond" under various Clauses including 3, 19, 23,
24, 25, 35 and 40. To substantiate these aspects, necessary documents have
been filed in the typed set of papers and these facts are also not disputed.
12. The writ petitioner appears to have registered the company in the
name "Raymond Pharmaceuticals Private Limited" on 31.03.1983 much after
the company of the 3rd respondent has been registered in the year 1925 and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.28593 of 2012
the 3rd respondent has also acquired the trademark name in India and also
abroad under various clauses. It is the case of the 3rd respondent that they
came to know about the registration of a company in the name of the 3rd
respondent viz., "Raymond" on 12.09.2005 by the petitioner and thereafter
immediately within the period of 5 years, the 3rd respondent has filed an
application under Section 22 of the Companies Act for rectification.
13. The contention of the writ petitioner before the 2nd respondent is
that an interim order has been passed in favour of the petitioner in a Civil Suit
filed by the 3rd respondent and the same has reached finality. Now the 3rd
respondent cannot seek for rectification and further his civil suit is pending
and under such circumstance the application filed by the 3rd respondent ought
not to have been decided by the 2nd respondent.
14. Section 20 of the Companies Act, 1956 deals with companies not to
be registered with undesirable names. Section 20 reads as follows:
"Section 20. COMPANIES NOT TO BE
REGISTERED WITH UNDESIRABLE NAMES,--
(1) No company shall be registered by a name
which, in the opinion of the Central Government, is
undesirable.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.28593 of 2012
(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the
foregoing power, a name which is identical with, or
too nearly resembles,-
(i) The name by which a company in existence
has been previously registered, or
(ii) a registered trade mark, or a trade mark
which is subject of an application for registration, of
any other person under the Trade Marks Act, 1999,
may be deemed to be undesirable by the Central
Government within the meaning of sub-section (1).
(3) The Central Government may, before
deeming a name as undesirable under clause (ii) of
sub-section (2), consult the Registrar of Trade
Marks."
15. A perusal of the above Section makes it clear that the name by
which a company is in existence has been previously registered or a registered
trade mark, or a trade mark which is subject of an application for registration,
of any other person under the Trade Marks Act, such company may be
deemed to be undesirable by the Central Government within the meaning of
sub-section (1).
16. Section 22 of the Companies Act deals with Rectification of name
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.28593 of 2012
of company, the said section reads as follows:
"Section 22. RECTIFICATION OF NAME OF
COMPANY,--
(1) If, through inadvertence or otherwise, a
company on its first registration or on its
registration by a new name, is registered by a name
which-
(i) in the opinion of the Central Government,
is identical with, or too nearly resembles, the name
by which a company in existence has been previously
registered, whether under this Act or any previous
companies law, the first-mentioned company, or
(ii) on an application by a registered
proprietor of a trade mark, is in the opinion of the
Central Government identical with, or too nearly
resembles, a registered trade mark of such
proprietor under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, such
company,
(a) may, by ordinary resolution and with the
previous approval of the Central Government
signified in writing, change its name or new name ;
and
(b) shall, if the Central Government so directs
within twelve months of its first registration or
registration by its new name, as the case may be, or
within twelve months of the commencement of this
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.28593 of 2012
Act, whichever is later, by ordinary resolution and
with the previous approval of the Central
Government signified in writing, change its name or
new name within a period of three months from the
date of the direction or such longer period as the
Central Government may think fit to allow.
Provided that no application under clause (ii)
made by a registered proprietor of a trade mark
after five years of coming to notice of registration of
the company shall be considered by the Central
Government.
(2) If a company makes default in complying
with any direction given under clause (b) of sub-
section (1), the company, and every officer who is in
default, shall be punishable with fine which may
extend to one thousand rupees for every day during
which the default continues."
17. A perusal of the above Section makes it clear that an application by
a registered proprietor of a trademark can be made for rectification on the
ground that the registered proprietor's trademark is identical with or too nearly
resembles with the registered trademark of such registered company. The
proviso to the said Section makes it clear that after the knowledge of existence
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.28593 of 2012
of any company, any application for rectification ought to have been made
within a period of five years from the date of notice of registration of the
company.
18. It is the specific case of the 3rd respondent that they acquired the
knowledge of the writ petitioner's company only on 12.09.2005 and thereafter,
they filed an application within a period of five years. As, 12.09.2005 being a
Sunday, they filed the application on 13.09.2005, being the very next working
day. Therefore, it is the contention of the 3rd respondent that the application
filed by them is within time.
19. It is relevant to note that the 2nd respondent has conducted enquiry
and also by following due procedure adjudicated the matter. Therefore, it had
all the trappings of the Court while conducting proceedings and Limitation Act
will certainly be applicable. The Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Madhya
Pradesh Vs. Anshuman Shukla reported in (2008) 7 SCC 487 has held that
Administrative Bodies and Tribunal if in fact having the characteristics,
functions and powers of a Court and therefore for all intents and purposes they
are Courts.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.28593 of 2012
20. It is not disputed that the application has been submitted to the
second respondent on 13.09.2005 and it is also not disputed that the limitation
period clearly ends on 12.09.2005. It is also not disputed that 12.09.2005 is a
Sunday. As 12.09.2005 being a Sunday, the 3rd respondent naturally
submitted the application on the next working day and therefore the
application has been filed within the period of five years. Therefore, the
contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the
limitation has expired and the application of the 3rd respondent ought not to
have been entertained beyond the period of limitation i.e., after five years
cannot be countenanced.
21. The next submission of the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner that the civil court is seized of the matter in respect of trademark
and infringement suit, the interim order sought for by the 3rd respondent has
not been granted by the learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court,
which has been ultimately confirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court.
22. Section 29 of the Trademarks Act deals with registered trademarks
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.28593 of 2012
relating to goods and services in respect of which trademarks is registered.
When there is infringement, the registered proprietor may sue for
infringement. Whereas Section 22 of the Companies Act deals with
rectification of name of the company. The two Acts act in different field.
Whereas the Trademarks Act deals with infringement relating to goods and
services, whereas Section 22 of the Companies Act deals with rectification of
the name of the company which are identical with or too nearly resembles the
registered trademark of any proprietor under the Trademarks Act.
23. Therefore, merely because an interim order was not in favour of the
third respondent in the civil suit, that will not have any relevance to decide the
application filed under Section 22 of the Companies Act since both Section 29
of the Trademarks Act and Section 22 of the Companies Act operate in
different field and independent of each other.
24. In this regard, a learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court
in Surya Elevators and Escalators India Private Limited Vs. Union of India
reported in (2013) 177 Comp Cas 230 (Karn) has held that mere pendency of
a civil suit has no relevance to decide an application under Section 22 of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.28593 of 2012
Companies Act and the contention that pendency of civil proceedings under
Section 22 of the Companies Act ought not to have been entertained was also
rejected.
25. The Delhi High Court in Montari Overseas Ltd., Vs. Montari
Industries Ltd., reported in ILR 1997 Delhi 64 has held that the remedy
under Section 22 of the Companies Act and other common law will operate in
different fields.
26. The Delhi High Court in K.G.Khosla Compressors Ltd., Vs.
Khosla Extrakting Ltd reported in AIR 1986 Delhi 181 has held that the
jurisdiction of the Civil Court is independent of and separate from that of the
Central Government under Section 20 of the Companies Act.
27. The Delhi High Court in CGMP Pharmaplan Pvt. Ltd., Vs.
Regional Director, Ministry of Corporate Affairs reported in
MANU/DE/2116/2010 has held in paragraph 17 as follows:
"17. The decision in Montari Overseas
Limited makes it clear that a civil court exercising
its powers in terms of the CPC and determining in a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.28593 of 2012
passing-off action if one name is confusingly
deceptive or similar to another name, is exercising
a jurisdiction independent of the jurisdiction of
Respondent No. 1 in respect of the registering of a
company"s name. The latter is a power vested in the
central government in terms of Sections 20 and 22
of the Act. While it is true that the Respondent No. 1
cannot approach the case as it would in a trade
mark dispute, it is nevertheless required to come to
the conclusion whether the name of which the
registration is sought or has been granted too
nearly resembles the name of another company. Mr.
Chandra is right in his contention that the powers of
the central government under Section 22 of the Act
are wider inasmuch as there is no need to examine
whether there is a likelihood of deception or
confusion. It is enough to examine if the name
registered too nearly resembles another registered
name. The Respondent No.2 has been able to show
that both names too nearly resemble each other."
28. The Delhi High Court in Mondelez Foods Private Limited Vs. The
Regional Director (North), Ministry of Corporate Affairs reported in 2017
SCC Online Del 9219 in paragraph 12 has held as follows:
"12. Section 22 of the Act is not happily
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.28593 of 2012
worded. Whereas Section 22(1)(i) of the Act, does
not indicate that the Central Government is
precluded from directing change of name in case
the same is found to be undesirable; Section
22(1)(ii)(b) of the Act indicates that the company
with an undesirable name is obliged to change its
name only on receipt of such directions within a
period of twelve months from the date of
registration. Further, the introduction of proviso to
Section 22(1) must also be given some meaning;
plainly, if the owner of a registered trade mark is
not precluded from making a complaint within a
period of five years of becoming aware of a
company with a deceptively similar name, the
power of the RD to examine and address such
complaint should be read in the statutory provision.
However, it is not necessary to examine the same in
view of the provisions of the Companies Act, 2013
which are now in force. In terms of Section 16 of
the Companies Act, 2013, the Central Government
is empowered to issue directions to a company to
change its name, if it is similar to the name of a
company registered prior in point of time......"
29. The interim order dated 15.02.2007 has been passed by the Bombay
High Court in Civil Suit No.437 of 2006 mainly on the ground that the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.28593 of 2012
petitioner herein used the trademark name "Raymond" not in relation to the
goods or services in respect of which the 3rd respondent's trade mark is
registered since the petitioner did not use it on any of the 3rd respondent's
products. Hence, the use is not in such a manner as is likely to be taken as
being used as a trademark. The above order has been passed taking note of the
fact the nature of good and services rendered by the contesting parties.
Therefore, merely because injunction was rejected in favour of the 3rd
respondent, it cannot be said that he has no remedy under the Companies Act.
As the Companies Act operate in a different field, what is required to be seen
in the Companies Act is whether the trademark is identical with or too nearly
resembles a registered trademark. Therefore, mere assumption of identical
name or name resembles a registered trademark is suffice to take action under
Section 22 of the Companies Act and it is in no way dealt with goods or
services.
30. Therefore, this Court is of the view that when an application has
been filed within the period of five years and the name "Raymond" resembled
with the name of the third respondent, the order passed by the second
respondent cannot be faulted.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.28593 of 2012
31. It is yet another contention of the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner that since the application has now been filed on the Online portal,
the same ought to have been filed on 12.09.2005 itself. It is relevant to note
that it is not a mere submission just like e-tender, it is an application to be
submitted before the authority within the relevant period of time. Even the
application are filed on-line, it cannot be taken as filing since the entire office
of the 2nd respondent was not functioning during Sunday, therefore it cannot
be said that Limitation Act will not be applicable. Section 12(1) of the
Limitation Act deals with exclusion of time in legal proceedings. Therefore,
the last day being a holiday (Sunday), the filling of an application on the very
next working day was in order and within the period of five years. The
Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court relied upon by the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner in Maharashtra Housing Development
Authority Vs. Shapoorji Pallonji and Company reported in (2018) 3 SCC 13
relates to the filing of e-tender. On the date of submission of the e-tender,
there was enough time and on that context the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
held that e-tender ought to have been filed within time and the same is not
applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.28593 of 2012
32. Further, Section 4 of the Limitation Act, 1963 makes it clear that the
period prescribed for any suit, appeal, or application expires on a day when
the Court is closed, the suit, appeal or application may be instituted, preferred
or made on the date when the Court re-opens. Therefore in the given case the
relevant date expired on Sunday and on the very next working day the
application has been filed by the 3rd respondent and the same has been
entertained by the 2nd respondent. Therefore the contention of the learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner that the limitation period has expired has
no legs to stand.
33. Considering the entire order passed by the second respondent, this
Court do not find any illegality or irregularity in the same. The second
respondent has rightly invoked the powers under Section 22 of the Companies
Act and the 3rd respondent company being incorporated in the year 1925 and
it has registered the trademark under various Clauses including 3, 19, 23, 24,
25, 35 and 40. Whereas, the petitioner's company has been registered in the
year 1983 much after the registration of the 3rd respondent company in the
year 1925.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.28593 of 2012
34. Such view the matter, the impugned order dated 17.07.2012, passed
by the second respondent directing the petitioner Company to change its name
does not require any interference and accordingly this writ petition is
dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
No costs.
02.12.2022
Index : Yes / No
kk
To
1. The Secretary to Government,
Ministry of Corporate Affairs,
Nirman Bhavan, New Delhi - 110 011.
2. The Regional Director,
Ministry of Corporate Affairs,
Southern Region, Haddows Road,
Shastri Bhawan, Chennai - 600 006.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.28593 of 2012
N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.
kk
W.P.No.28593 of 2012
and M.P.Nos.1 & 2 of 2012
02.12.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
