Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2000 (1) TMI 897

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e and style of Kalpana Polytec India Ltd. Santilal Dugar one of the directors of the appellant was also at one point of time connected with Kalpana Industries Ltd., respondent No. 4 herein and/or respondent Nos. 5 and 6. A proprietorship firm was started by one Mahendra Kumar Surana which was later on converted into a partner ship firm in the year 1978 wherein one Ashok Kumar Baid and others became partners. However, during the continuance of the said partner ship firm, another firm was floated known as Kalpana Plastics (P.) Ltd. which was later on changed to Kalpana Promoters (P.) Ltd. Differences and disputes arose between the two groups in the partnership firm, namely, the Baids and the Suranas. After the writ petitioner got itself regis .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ., the respondent-company to change its name by deleting the word 'Kalpana' prefixed to its name so as to reflect a clear distinction with the name of the existing complainant's company's name within three months from the date of this direction. Kalpana Polytec India Ltd. shall make an application to the Registrar of Companies, West Bengal, Calcutta, within the said period of three months for availability of the new name and shall also have its present name changed by the Registrar of Companies, West Bengal, Calcutta, within six months from the date on which the Registrar of Companies, West Bengal, shall make the new name available to it." 4. The main thrust of submission advanced before us as also before the learned trial judge on beha .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ourt. The learned trial judge upon considering the submissions made on behalf of the parties hereto, inter alia, held that they may agitate the disputed questions in the civil court. However, the learned trial judge was of the opinion that the Regional Director had the requisite jurisdiction to pass an order under section 22 and no illegality and/or error apparent on the face of the order had been committed by the said authority. 7. Nobody has appeared on behalf of the respondents herein. Having considered the submissions made on behalf of the writ petitioner-appellant. We are of the opinion that in the facts and circumstances of the case it was fit and proper for the learned trial judge to consider the submissions made on behalf of t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nd/or its delegate may also be subject to any judgment of the civil court to be passed in a suit filed by a person aggrieved thereby. 9. The learned trial judge in our considered opinion should have also considered the question as to whether the Regional Director of Companies had the competence to exercise his jurisdiction under section 22 to go into the aforementioned disputed question. Jurisdictional error, as is well known, is no longer confined to lack of inherent jurisdiction but also is extended to such jurisdictional errors which may be committed while exercising the jurisdiction. The scope and purport of the power of the Court under article 226 of the Constitution is a wide one in view of the decision in Anisminic Ltd. v. For .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... action in so far as he took into consideration various irrelevant factors as noticed hereinbefore which were not germane for exercising his jurisdiction under section 22. It is now a well-settled principle of law that the words 'error apparent on the face of the record' include exercise of jurisdiction by an authority which he did not have upon taking into consideration irrelevant factors and/or refusing to take into consideration the relevant factors. 11. As the learned trial judge has not considered this aspect of the matter at all, we are of the opinion that the impugned judgment cannot be sustained. It is set aside accordingly. The appeal is, therefore, allowed and the impugned order dated 30-6-1997, passed by the second respondent .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates