TMI Blog1999 (4) TMI 573X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and Pandit Equipment Pvt. Ltd.) company was incorporated on January 4, 1996. The petitioner lodged a complaint on February 20, 1996, before respondent Nos. 1 and 2 for rectification of the name of the new company (respondent No. 3). 4. On May 17, 1996, respondent No. 3 on coming to know about the filing of the said complaint filed a Title Suit No. 193 of 1996 and also filed a petition for ad interim injunction praying to restrain the defendant from taking steps in any court from interfering, cancelling the registration of the plaintiffs as per the complaint and from publishing any notice against the business of the plaintiff in any paper. By order dated May 18, 1996, the learned First Sub-Judge, Patna, issued an ex parte interim order of status quo and later on confirmed the same by an order dated August 8, 1996. 5. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal against the said order dated August 8, 1996, before the learned District Judge, Patna. On an interlocutory application filed by the petitioners the learned District Judge by his order dated September 12, 1996, stayed the operation of the order passed by the learned First Judge to the extent that "t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s bona fide and in due compliance with the mandate of the provisions of section 22 of the Companies Act. Various other averments have been made in the affidavit-in-opposition which are not necessary or relevant for the purpose of the present enquiry. 12. The short question for determination is whether the impugned order is valid in law and whether any directions can at all be issued to the Regional Director when the periods stipulated in section 22 of the Act have elapsed. The further question is that when the period of limitation as prescribed in section 22 elapsed and whether the same can be extended or enlarged. 13. The submissions of Mr. Goutam Chakraborty, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners are that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in purporting to act as they did, are guilty of non-application of mind and failure to appreciate the statutory rights available to the petitioners under section 22 of the Act. No. explanation has been offered by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 for their inaction within the period stipulated under section 22 of the Act and for the said inaction and default, the petitioners legal rights cannot be allowed to be either violated or the provi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l Government so directs within twelve months of its first registration or registration by its new name, as the case may be, or within twelve months of the commencement of this Act, whichever is later, by ordinary resolution and with the previous approval of the Central Government signified in writing, change its name or new name within a period of three months from the date of the direction or such longer period as the Central Government may think fit to allow: ****** (2) If a company makes default in complying with any direction given under clause ( b ) of sub-section (1), the company, and every officer who is in default, shall be punishable with fine which may extend to one hundred rupees for everyday during which the default continues." 17. A bare perusal of the provisions of section 20 shows that if in the opinion of the Central Government, it is undesirable to register a company with the proposed name, it shall not be so registered. In sub-section (2) thereof, it has been stated that the 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 the Central Government ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is not in point, I am in respectful agreement with the observations as noted supra and made by Justice B. Vikshapathy of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. 23. The distinguishing feature being that in Sidhvi Constructions India (P.) Ltd. s case ( supra ) the application of the petitioner therein before the competent authority was made after the expiry of the period of limitation prescribed in section 22(1)( b ). In the instant case, though the application was made well within time (February 20, 1996), i.e., within one month from the date of registration of respondent No. 3 company, no action was taken thereon by the respondent authorities. Meanwhile, by virtue of the interim injunction order dated May 17, 1996, no action could be taken until September 12, 1996, when the injunction was vacated by the learned District Judge, Patna, temporarily. On January 25, 1997, the injunction order was set aside when the appeal was allowed by the learned District Judge. 24. It cannot be disputed much less by respondent No. 3 herein (plaintiff in Title Suit No. 193 of 1996) that during the period the injunction order of the court was in operation, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (repository of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion Act, 1963, the provisions of which are now applicable to all proceedings, a provision like Explanation 1 to section 132 is superfluous and no argument can be based on it." (p. 396) 29. In view of the above, it must be held that the period covered by the order of injunction is liable to be excluded while computing the period of 12 months laid down in section 22(1)( b ) of the Companies Act. The contention of Dr. Pal to the contra has therefore, to be rejected. 30. Even if the said period is excluded, as it has to be, then also the said period within which the power would have been invoked expired in April, 1997. The impugned order is dated September 15, 1997, and, therefore, no direction as prayed for can be granted to the respondent authority to invoke the powers or initiate any action by virtue thereof. 31. True, as contended by Mr. Chakraborty, learned senior counsel for the writ petitioner respondent No. 2 authority is solely responsible for the delay and default in not taking action within the prescribed period or thereafter, when the injunction order was no longer in operation. 32. It was Mr. Chakraborty s submissions that when the provisions of the stat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
