https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113935 The court quashed the Regional Director's order, ruling that the second respondent's application under Section 22 of the Companies Act, 1956, was time-barred. The court held that the application filed in 2004 was beyond the permissible period, and the amendment introduced by the Trade Marks Act, 1999, could not revive the lapsed right. It was concluded that the second respondent's remedy for trade mark infringement should be pursued separately. en-us Wed, 09 Sep 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 01 Nov 2014 14:01:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113935 The court quashed the Regional Director's order, ruling that the second respondent's application under Section 22 of the Companies Act, 1956, was time-barred. The court held that the application filed in 2004 was beyond the permissible period, and the amendment introduced by the Trade Marks Act, 1999, could not revive the lapsed right. It was concluded that the second respondent's remedy for trade mark infringement should be pursued separately. Case-Laws Companies Law Wed, 09 Sep 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113935