TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2003 (4) TMI 488
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ame. This representation of the petitioner has been decided by impugned order dated July 4, 2001. In this order passed by the Regional Director (NR), Kanpur it is accepted that the name of respondent No. 4 is identical and too nearly resembles the name of the petitioner-company and the observations to this effect are as under : "And whereas on the basis of comments/clarification furnished by the respondent-company, the Central Government is of the opinion that M/s. Hira Lal and Son (I) P. Ltd. has been inadvertently or otherwise incorporated and its name is identical and too nearly resembles to the name of the applicant-company. It may cause misleading effects in the minds of general public and accordingly it has been decided that it is a fit case for issue of directions under section 22 of the Companies Act, 1956." 2. Respondent No. 2, in order to remedy the situation, gave direction in the concluding para of the impugned order to the effect that the name of respondent No. 4-company be changed suffixing "Anupam" so as to read "M/s. Hira Lal & Son (I) Anupam Pvt. Ltd.", as would be clear from the following observations : "Now, therefore, in exercise of powers delegated to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s. The same persons incorporated the petitioner-company. He submitted that respondent No. 4 incorporated as a result of a family settlement between the parties after the disputes had arisen. Learned counsel also submitted that the director of the petitioner-company had given no objection certificate on September 10, 2000, whereby he agreed that respondent Nos. 5 and 6 could do the business of manufacture/ trading/exports of home textiles (namely made ups, home furnishing, floor coverings) by using the name of "Hira Lal" and trade name "Hira Lal and Sons". He further submitted that in view of such family settlement the use of the name "Hira Lal and Sons", when Hira Lal was the grand-father of husband of respondent No. 5 could not be objected to by the petitioner. 5. Section 20 of the Act is in the following terms : "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. (2) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, a name which is identical with, or too nearly resembles, the name by which a company in existence has been previously registered, m....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ter attaining majority Shri Ramakant Gupta, son of Shri Harishankar Gupta and grandson of Shri Hira Lal Gupta were inducted as partners with effect from April 1, 1970. Thereafter, Shri Umakant Gupta, son of Shri Harishankar Gupta was inducted as partner in this firm on April 1, 1979, when he attained majority. This partnership firm consisted of Shri Hiralal Gupta, Shri Ramakant Gupta and Shri Umakant Gupta. In the year 1973, the petitioner-company was incorporated as a family concern of Shri Hiralal Gupta, Shri Harishankar Gupta and Shri Umakant Gupta, Shri Hiralal Gupta died on April 8, 1980 and the present partners of this firm are Shri Ramakant Gupta, Shri Umakant Gupta and Shri Harishankar Gupta. 9. Insofar as the petitioner-company is concerned, respondent No. 5 as well as Shri Ramakant Gupta and Shri Umakant Gupta were its directors. It appears that some disputes arose and these persons branched out. It is alleged by respondent Nos. 4 and 5 that this was result of family settlement as per which they were permitted to incorporate respondent No. 4- company by using the name of their grandfather Shri Hira Lal. It is in this context that the no objection certificate is relied ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... under section 22 of the Act. Justice S.B. Sinha (as he then was) held so by observing as under : "The Regional Director was a statutory authority. His jurisdiction was, therefore, confined to the four corners of section 22 of the Act. A statutory authority, as is well known, must act within the four corners of the statute or not at all. From the order dated June 30, 1997, it does not appear that he has arrived at a conclusion to the effect that the order of registration of the appellant-company in terms of the provisions of section 20 of the Companies Act read with section 34 thereof warranted revocation in terms of section 22 of the Act. The words 'or otherwise' in our considered view must therefore be considered in the context of the word 'inadvertence'. In other words, the word 'otherwise' must be read ejusdem generis. Furthermore, the jurisdiction of a Regional Director in terms of section 22 of the Indian Companies Act and the jurisdiction of a civil court while adjudicating upon a passing off action are not the same. If the reasoning of the second respondent herein is correct, we are of the opinion that respondent Nos. 5 and 6 also could not have continued to be registere....