9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (4) TMI 488X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ons (Exports) Pvt. Ltd. which was incorporated in the year 1973. Respondent No. 4 was allowed to be incorporated with the name of Hira Lal and Sons (I) Pvt. Ltd. in July, 2000, by the Registrar of Companies. The petitioner, in these circumstances, filed a representation under section 22 of the Act to the Government of India against the incorporation of respondent No. 4- company with the aforesaid name. 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 t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is the contention of the petitioner that once respondent No. 2 accepted that name of respondent No. 4-company too nearly resembles the name of the petitioner-company, respondent No. 2 should have directed respondent No. 4-company to change its name. A direction to add suffix "Anupam", has not solved the problem as the resemblance remains so long as "M/s. Hira Lal Sons" is allowed in the name of respondent No. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per section 20 of the Act, a company which is identical with, or too nearly resembles the existing company, cannot be allowed to be incorporated with that name. He submitted that such similar name can be permitted only if there was no objection certificate given by the existing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rings) 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, may be deemed to be undesirable by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not come under the mischief of sub-section (2) of section 20. 8. Had it been the case of an outsider using M/s. Hira Lal and Sons as prefix to its name, there may have been some substance in the contention of the petitioner. That is not so. The petitioner-company as well as respondent No. 4-company belong to the persons with common family roots. The directors of the petitioner-company as well as respondent No. 4 - company belong to same family and are descendants of late Shri Hira Lal. It is explained in detail in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No. 4 as to how Shri Hira Lal Gupta, who was the grandfather of the husband of respondent No. 5, started the business as a sole proprietorship concern in the year 1940 with t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rother, Umakant Gupta or any other person specified in foregoing para. ( a ) from using the name of our grandfather Hira Lal and the trade name Hira Lall and Son, for his/their business activities which name is being used by both of us till date." 10. No doubt, this no objection certificate is given on September 10, 2000, i.e., after the incorporation of the company. However, one can infer therefrom that the directors of the petitioner-company had no objection and there was an oral understanding at the time of incorporation of respondent No. 4-company for incorporating it by using the name of their grandfather Shri Hira Lall. 11. There is yet another aspect which needs to be highlighted at this stage. The petitioner-company is doi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
