TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (8) TMI 1630
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ection 16(1)(a) of the Companies Act, 2013. According to the petitioner, the said provision does not specify any period of limitation as was the case in section 22(1)(ii)(b) of the Companies Act, 1956. (b) The Companies Act, 2013 came into effect on 01.04.2014 repealing the old Companies Act, 1956. The petitioner has filed the applications under section 16(1)(a) of the Companies Act, 2013 on 12.05.2017 prior to the date of general circular No.04/17 dated 16.05.2017. (c) The general circular No.04/17 dated 16.05.2017 is applicable only to those applicants whose application was rejected by the Regional Director earlier under section 22(1)(ii)(b) of the Companies Act, 1956 on the ground that the said applications were made beyond the prescribed period of twelve months. According to the petitioner, Section 22(1)(ii)(b) of the Companies Act, 1956 has no bearing if an application has been filed afresh under section 16(1)(a) of the Companies Act, 2013, as the petitioner never filed an application under section 22(1)(ii)(b) of the Companies Act, 1956 earlier before the Companies Act, 2013 came into effect. (d) The petitioner was incorporated in the year 1978 and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... failed before the Delhi High Court is indulging in forum shopping to make out baseless claims against the respective third respondents. The petitioner is estopped from re-agitating the very same claim that was made before the Delhi High Court. (i) The petitioner had preferred an appeal against the order dated 20.02.2013 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court and the same was numbered as FAO (OS) 323 & 324/2013 on the file of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court. The said appeals were also dismissed as withdrawn at the instance of the petitioner by the Division Bench of Delhi High Court vide Order dated 19.08.2014. (j) The petitioner herein is a chronic litigant and has tried to stop various other third parties also from using the mark TT in which again it has miserably failed. (k) The adoption of the mark TT by the respective third respondent as part of the trading style is bonafide and has no connection with the use of the mark TT by the petitioner herein. Submissions of the learned counsels: 4. Heard Ms. Shilpi Jain, learned counsel, representing Mr. R. Sathish Kumar learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R. Subramania....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the applications of the petitioner seeking for rectification of the name of the respective third respondents under Section 16 (1) (a) of the Companies Act, 2013 as not maintainable for the following reasons: i) The findings of the Delhi High Court in its order dated 20.02.2013 in C.S. (O.S.) No.101 of 2008 and C.S. (O.S.) No.102 of 2008 have attained finality and is binding on the petitioner. Therefore, the applications filed by the petitioner under Section 16 (1) (a) of the Companies Act, 2013 is hit by the principles of res judicata. The Delhi High Court in the said decision has observed as follows: "a) Considering the nature of business of the petitioner and the third respondent herein, there is no possibility of any confusion; b) The petitioner's goods are sold across the counter, whereas the third respondent's service is different." ii) The respective third respondent Company was admittedly incorporated under the old Companies Act, 1956. The new Companies Act, 2013 came into effect from 01.04.2014. The respective third respondent Company has been in existence prior to 01.04.2014 and the Regional Director could have exercised his powe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....similarity only on 02.09.2016, though the respective third respondent company were incorporated under the old Companies Act, 1956 in the year as detailed hereunder: W.P. No. Name of the respective third respondent Incorporation (Year) 52 / 2022 M/s. T T Enterprises Pvt. Ltd 2000 5325 / 2020 M/s. T T Logistics and Cargo Pvt. Ltd. 2000 5327 / 2020 M/s. T T Insurance Broking Service Pvt. Ltd. 2000 5330 / 2020 M/s. T T Aviation Handling Services Pvt. Ltd. 2007 12. Under the old Companies Act, 1956 the provision which enables any applicant to seek for rectification of another Company's name on account of its alleged similarity is Section 22 which reads as follows: "22. RECTIFICATION OF NAME OF COMPANY (1) 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 b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ereas under Section 16 (1) (a) of the new Companies Act, 2013, the reference to limitation is omitted. The petitioner claims that due to the said omission, the applications filed by the petitioner under Section 16 (1) (a) of the new Companies Act is not barred by limitation. 14. Section 16 of the new Companies Act, 2013 reads as follows: 16. 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,- (a) in the opinion of the Central Government, is identical with or too nearly resembles the name by which a company in existence had been previously registered, whether under this Act or any previous company law, it may direct the company to change its name and the company shall change its name or new name, as the case may be, within a period of three months from the issue of such direction, after adopting an ordinary resolution for the purpose; (b) on an application by a registered proprietor of a trade mark that the name is identical with or too nearly resembles to a registered trade mark of such proprietor under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, made to t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rity is required to initiate the said proceedings within a reasonable period. In Mohamad Kavi Mohamad Amin vs. Fatmabai Ibrahim reported in (1997) 6 SCC 7, suo motu proceedings were initiated in September 1976 by the Mamlatdar questioning the validity of the sale deed executed in December 1972. In the said case, the Hon'ble supreme Court after noticing the earlier decisions on the issue observed thus : " Where no time limit is prescribed for exercise of a power under a statute, it does not mean that it can be exercised at any time; such power has to be exercised within a reasonable time. We are satisfied that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the suo motu power under section 84-c of the Act was not exercised by the Mamlatdar within a reasonable time." The aforesaid decision was also followed in the recent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and another vs. Citi Bank N.A in Civil Appeal No.9337 of 2010 dated 24.08.2022. 18. The power to direct rectification under section 16(1)(a) is exclusively vested with the Central Government and is a suo motu power. Even if the Central Government decides to initiate suo mot....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Trade Mark is empowered to exercise its right seeking for rectification under section 16(1)(b), the intention of the legislature would never have been to grant them dual rights under the very same section of either exercising right under section 16(1)(a) or under section 16(1)(b). The conjunction "or" is also deliberately omitted between section 16(1)(a) and 16(1)(b) to make the distinction which makes it clear that the intention of the legislature was not to grant right to a registered Proprietor of a trade mark to exercise its rights for rectification of the name both under section 16(1)(a) and section 16(1)(b) of the Companies Act, 2013. The power under section 16(1)(a) is exclusively vested with the Central Government and is a suo motu power. However, the said suo-motu power can be exercised by the Central Government only after its objective satisfaction. The applications filed by the petitioner under section 16(1)(a) before the second respondent being not maintainable, the second respondent has rightly rejected the applications. Earlier instances of the second respondent entertaining such applications on behalf of the petitioner cannot be a ground for this Court to accept the ....