IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.20477 OF 2014 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
M/S.SURYA ELEVATORS PVT. LTD., NO.9, 31ST MAIN, C.J.NAIDU LAYOUT, BANAGIRI NAGAR, BSK 3RD STAGE, BANGALORE – 560 085.
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR KOVURU ARUNACHALAM.
(BY SHRI K.SHRIHARI, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF CORPORATE AFFAIRS, SHASTRI BHAWAN, DR.R.P.ROAD, NEW DELHI – 110 011.
2. THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR, SOUTHERN EASTERN REGION …PETITIONER MINISTRY OF CORPORATE AFFAIRS, 2ND FLOOR, KENDRIYA SADAN, SULTAN BAZAR, KOTI, HYDERABAD – 500 195.
3. REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES, KARNATAKA KENDRIYA SADAN, SECOND FLOOR, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE – 34.
4. M/S. SURYODAYA ELEVATORS PRIVATE LIMITED, REGISTERED OFFICE:NO.27/1A, GROUND FLOOR, C.E.S.SCHOOL ROAD, JARAGANAHALLI, J.P.NAGAR POST, KANAKAPURA MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 078.
KARNATAKA.
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, MR.SURENDRANADHA REDDY.
… RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. PREMA HATTI, CGC FOR R1 TO R3; SHRI HARISH H.V., ADVOCATE FOR R4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 28TH FEBRUARY 2014 PASSED BY THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR, THE R-2 HEREIN, REJECTING THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER SECTION 22 OF THE COMPANIES ACT SEEKING A DIRECTION ON THE R-4 TO CHANGE ITS NAME, FILED AS ANNEXURE – A AND ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Heard Shri K.Shrihari, learned advocate for the petitioner, Smt. Prema Hatti, learned Central Government Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3. Shri Harish H.V., learned advocate for respondent No.4.
2. The grievance of the petitioner-Company is that, they have filed an application dated 19.12.2013 under Section 22 of the Companies Act, 1956, seeking direction to respondent No.4 to change its name with immediate effect.
3. Shri K.Shrihari, learned advocate for petitioner urged following two grounds:
► Name of petitioner’s Company “M/s Surya Elevators Pvt., Ltd.,” and name of respondent No.4 “M/s Suryodaya Elevators Pvt., Ltd.,” are phonetically similar; and ► Respondent No.4 in the meeting held between the parties on 06.10.2005 has undertaken not to use the word ‘Surya’.
4. Learned advocates for respondents argued in support of the impugned order.
5. I have carefully considered rival contentions and perused the records.
6. Admittedly, Regional Director of Companies is the appropriate Authority to deal with the application filed under Section 22 of Companies Act, 1956. Petitioner-Company was notified and they have been heard in the matter. Therefore, there is no error insofar as jurisdiction and violation of principles of natural justice.
7. Insofar as first ground with regard to phonetically similar word is concerned, the Regional Director has recorded the reasons in paragraph Nos.13, 14 and 15 by adverting to various guidelines issued by the Government of India.
8. The adjudicating authority has considered relevant material and passed a detailed order. Insofar as second ground with regard to undertaking given by respondent No.4 not to use the word ‘Surya’ is concerned, it is an agreement between the parties, which petitioner-Company may enforce, if so advised.
9. In the circumstances, there is no error in the impugned order.
Resultantly, this petition must fail and it is accordingly dismissed.
No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE PB