Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + SC Companies Law - 2004 (7) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2004 (7) TMI 610 - SUPREME COURTWhether the Agreement had not been placed before the Government of India and was thus illegal and unenforceable? Held that:- The fact that the 2nd Respondent-company could be incorporated with the name "Baker" as part of its corporate name and the fact that 40% shareholding was given to the Appellants in the 2nd Respondent Company prima facie shows that the Agreement dated 21st December, 1984 was acted upon and accepted even by the 2nd Respondent. The minutes of the Board Meeting held on 3rd September, 1993 also prima facie shows that even on this date the Respondents accepted this Agreement to be binding. The execution of this Agreement is not denied by the Respondents. What has been claimed is that this Agreement was not to be acted upon and/or that as this Agreement was not put before the Government of India, the Agreement was illegal and unenforceable. This argument has found favour with the Division Bench. Prima fade, it appears to us that this is a self defeating argument If the Agreement was not to be acted upon, then there is no right in the 2nd Respondent company to use the name 'Baker'. In spite of questions from this Court no other permission or licence to use the name "Baker" could be shown to us. If the Agreement is unenforceable then the entire Agreement is unenforceable. In that case the 2nd Respondent has got no right to use the name "Baker". On the reasoning that this Agreement was illegal and unenforceable the interim injunction should have been confirmed. The goods being identical there was likelihood of confusion and/or deception if the Respondents were permitted to carry on using this name. In the above view, the order of the Division Bench would have had to be set aside and that of the learned Single Judge restored. However, we are informed that the Trial Court has fixed 16th July, 2004 as the date for trial of the suit. Parties state that they will not ask for an adjournment.
|