Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal / NCLT & Others
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
In Favour Of: New
---- In Favour Of ----
  • ---- In Favour Of ----
  • Assessee
  • In favour of Assessee
  • Partly in favour of Assessee
  • Revenue
  • In favour of Revenue
  • Partly in favour of Revenue
  • Appellant / Petitioner
  • In favour of Appellant
  • In favour of Petitioner
  • In favour of Respondent
  • Partly in favour of Appellant
  • Partly in favour of Petitioner
  • Others
  • Neutral (alternate remedy)
  • Neutral (Others)
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court.
Eg: Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Hyderabad

Use comma for multiple locations.

AY/FY: New?
Enter only the year or year range (e.g., 2025, 2025–26, or 2025–2026).
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:

---------------- For section wise search only -----------------


Statute Type: ?
This filter alone wont work. 1st select a law > statute > section from below filter
New
---- All Statutes----
  • ---- All Statutes ----
  • Select the law first, to see the statutes list
Sections: ?
Select a statute to see the list of sections here
New
---- All Sections ----
  • ---- All Sections ----
  • Select the statute first, to see the sections list

Accuracy Level ~ 90%



TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2026
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
TMI Citation
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        whatsappJoin Channel
        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :
        Companies Law

        1995 (12) TMI 268 - HC - Companies Law

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        -

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        Court Upholds Injunction Against 'MONTARI' Name Use The court upheld the injunction against the appellant from using the word 'MONTARI' in its corporate name. It found that the respondent demonstrated a ...
                      Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.

                          Court Upholds Injunction Against 'MONTARI' Name Use

                          The court upheld the injunction against the appellant from using the word 'MONTARI' in its corporate name. It found that the respondent demonstrated a likelihood of confusion and potential harm to its reputation and goodwill. The court dismissed the appeal, emphasizing the importance of protecting reputation and goodwill in business and highlighting that the appellant's use of the name was not innocent but likely intended to mislead the public.




                          Issues Involved:
                          1. Injunction against the use of the word 'MONTARI' in the corporate name.
                          2. Applicability of Sections 20 and 22 of the Companies Act, 1956.
                          3. Bona fides of the appellant in adopting the corporate name.
                          4. Likelihood of confusion or deception among the public.
                          5. Protection of reputation and goodwill of the respondent.

                          Detailed Analysis:

                          Injunction Against the Use of the Word 'MONTARI' in the Corporate Name:
                          The appellant was injuncted from using the word 'MONTARI' or any deceptively similar word as part of its corporate name. The respondent, Montari Industries Ltd., claimed that the appellant's use of 'MONTARI' was likely to cause confusion and mislead the public into believing that the appellant was associated with the respondent. The learned single Judge granted the injunction, noting that reputation or goodwill in business generally attaches to the trade name adopted by a house, and such reputation or goodwill should be protected by the court.

                          Applicability of Sections 20 and 22 of the Companies Act, 1956:
                          The appellant argued that the respondent should have sought rectification of the appellant's name under Sections 20 and 22 of the Companies Act, 1956, which deal with the registration of companies with names similar to existing companies. However, the court held that the common law remedy available to an aggrieved party is not superseded by these sections. The court emphasized that both remedies operate in different fields: the Central Government under Section 22 cannot grant an injunction, whereas a civil court can pass an order restraining the use of a name that is being passed off as that of another company.

                          Bona Fides of the Appellant in Adopting the Corporate Name:
                          The appellant contended that its adoption of the name 'MONTARI' was bona fide and not intended to mislead the public. However, the court found this explanation unconvincing, noting discrepancies in the appellant's justification for the name. The court concluded that the appellant's adoption of the name was not innocent and was likely intended to mislead the public into believing an association with the respondent.

                          Likelihood of Confusion or Deception Among the Public:
                          The court emphasized that the real test is whether an ordinary person or the public at large is likely to be deceived. The court found that the use of 'MONTARI' by the appellant was likely to cause confusion, as the respondent had established a significant reputation and goodwill under that name. The court cited several precedents where injunctions were granted to prevent the use of similar trade names that could mislead the public.

                          Protection of Reputation and Goodwill of the Respondent:
                          The court highlighted that a company has a right to protect its reputation and goodwill. The use of a similar name by a competitor can injure the reputation and business of the original company. The court noted that the appellant's use of 'MONTARI' could lead the public to mistakenly infer a connection between the two companies, thereby harming the respondent's reputation and goodwill.

                          Conclusion:
                          The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the injunction against the appellant from using the word 'MONTARI' in its corporate name. The court found that the respondent had made a prima facie case for the grant of ad interim injunction, and the appellant's use of the name was likely to cause confusion and injure the respondent's reputation and goodwill. The court emphasized that the legislative intent of Sections 20 and 22 of the Companies Act, 1956, supports the granting of injunctive relief in such cases.
                          Full Summary is available for active users!
                          Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.

                          Topics

                          ActsIncome Tax
                          No Records Found