TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (7) TMI 1788
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ct'], whereby the petitioner/company ['DNA FORENSICS TEST SOLUTION PRIVATE LIMITED'] was directed to change its name, on the ground that it was similar to and, resembled that of respondent no. 3/complainant company, namely, 'DNA FORENSICS LABORATORY PRIVAYE LIMITED' ['impugned order']. 2. Mr. Md. Kashif, counsel for petitioner/company, raises an issue of jurisdiction and states that the trigger under Section 16(1)(a), is in contradistinction to Section 16(1)(b) of the Act. Under section 16(1)(b) of the Act, a direction can be issued on an 'application' made by registered proprietor of a trademark; whereas under Section 16(1)(a), it has to be based upon an 'opinion' of the Central Government. He states that since the impugned order was tr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bles a registered trade mark of such proprietor under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. 20. The petitioner contends in these Writ Petitions that even on an application, the second respondent can exercise its power under Section 16 (1) (a) of the Companies Act, 2013 which in the considered view of this Court is incorrect. The reason being is that under Section 16 (1) (a) of the Companies Act, 2013, it begins with the phrase "in the opinion of the Central Government" which is distinct from section 16(1)(b) which power is exercised only on an application by the Registered Proprietor of a Trade Mark. Therefore, Section 16(1)(a) of the Act is a Suo-motu power vested exclusively by the Central Government. When the Registered Proprietor of a Tra....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d precedents are not in accordance with law and not rendered by constitutional courts. Erroneous orders passed earlier by the second respondent under Section 16 (1) (a) of the Companies Act, 2013 which have been placed on record before this Court as precedents by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not in accordance with the statute viz., Section 16 (1) (a) of the Companies Act, 2013 and therefore, even by way of persuasion, the said erroneous orders cannot be considered by this Court and has to be rejected outright. None of the decisions of the High Courts relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner dealt with the maintainability of an application under section 16(1)(a) of the Act and therefore, they have no bearing to the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Central Government initiating its suo motu power under section 16(1)(a) of the Companies Act, 2013 at this stage will not arise and will be barred by limitation. This Court is therefore, of the considered view that the second respondent has rightly rejected the applications filed by the petitioner on the ground of limitation." (emphasis added) 6. It was in this context that the Madras High Court made the observations in paragraph nos.19 & 20, as extracted above. Further, what had prevailed with the Madras High Court, in the facts of that case, is that the petitioner had failed in its attempt to get an order of injunction before the Delhi High Court, during the pendency of disposal of the trademark suit and, had therefore, filed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s the name of a company in existence which had been previously registered, and therefore, it can direct the newly registered company to change its name. 9. The contradistinction drawn out by counsel for petitioner with Section 16(1)(b) of the Act, which is triggered by an application made by a registered proprietor of trademark, is not tenable. Section 16(1)(b) of the Act is naturally triggered by an application, since the registered proprietor of a trademark, who is aggrieved with an identical name being used by a newly registered company, will necessarily apply for getting the name struck off. However, Section 16 (1)(a) of the Act is a wider power, which allows the Central Government to suo motu, on its own, direct rectification of a n....