Limitation for company name rectification does not revive after amendment when the earlier remedy had already expired.

An application for rectification of a company name was held barred where the earlier limitation period under section 22 of the Companies Act, 1956 had already expired before the application was filed. The later amendment, which expanded the class of applicants to registered trade mark proprietors and adjusted the timing framework, did not revive a remedy that had already become time-barred under the unamended provision. The rectification order was therefore unsustainable, and the direction to delete the disputed word from the company name was quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether an application for rectification of a company name under section 22 of the Companies Act, 1956, as amended, was maintainable when the remedy had already become barred under the unamended provision.

Analysis: The unamended section empowered rectification proceedings only within twelve months of the company's registration or change of name. The amendment inserted a new category of applicants, namely registered trade mark proprietors, with a proviso concerning applications made after coming to notice of the company's registration. The Court held that, on the facts, the respondent's remedy under the unamended provision had already expired long before the application was made. A later amendment enlarging the class of applicants and the time framework could not revive a remedy that had already become barred. The asserted right to proceed under the amended provision therefore could not be used to overcome the earlier lapse of limitation.

Conclusion: The application under section 22 was barred by limitation and was not maintainable; the impugned rectification order was unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded, and the direction requiring deletion of the word from the petitioner's name was quashed.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory amendment enlarging the remedy or class of applicants does not revive a claim that was already barred under the earlier limitation regime unless the Legislature clearly so provides.

---