9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenge to order of Regional Director under Companies Act, 1956 regarding change of company name based on similarity with another company's trade name; Violation of principles of natural justice in passing the order without giving sufficient opportunity to the petitioner. Analysis: 1. The writ petition challenged an order by the Regional Director directing the petitioner to change its company name due to similarity with another company's trade name. The key issue was the violation of natural justice principles as the petitioner claimed they were not given a fair opportunity before the order was passed. 2. The petitioner argued that they were not given a chance to present their case before the order was issued. The respondent contended that notice was served, but the petitioner did not participate in the enquiry, thus natural justice principles were not violated. 3. The second respondent supported the first respondent's position, stating that failure to participate in the enquiry waived the right to later complain about lack of opportunity. 4. The court focused on determining whether the impugned order was passed after providing due opportunity to the petitioner. 5. The petitioner's affidavit stated they were incorporated before the second respondent registered the name in question. The petitioner received the notice late and requested a fair opportunity to present their case. 6. The court examined the files and found discrepancies in the service of notices to the petitioner, indicating lack of acknowledgment or proof of service. 7. Based on the petitioner's letter and lack of acknowledgment of previous notices, the court concluded that the petitioner received the notice late and promptly sought an opportunity to present their case. 8. The court criticized the first respondent for rushing to dispose of the matter without ensuring the petitioner had a fair chance to defend their position, emphasizing the importance of providing a reasonable opportunity before depriving a person of accrued rights. 9. Given the impact of the order on the petitioner's company name and trade, the court held that the impugned order was set aside due to the violation of natural justice principles. 10. The court directed the first respondent to conduct a fair enquiry, allowing both parties to present their arguments before passing any orders, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. 11. Ultimately, the court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the impugned order and directing no costs to be imposed.
|
