ANIL DEV SINGH, J.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal against the order of the learned single Judge dated March 1, 1995 passed in 1. A. 129/95 in Suit No. 43/95, whereby the appellant (defendant in the suit was injuncted from using the word momtari or any other word deceptively similar thereto as part of its corporate name.

( 2 ) THE facts giving rise to this appeal are as under:-

( 3 ) M/s. Montari Industries Ltd. the respondent (plaintiff in suit) was incorporated on January 27, 1983. As per the assertion of the respondent it has several subsidiaries namely Montari Leasing and Finance Ltd. , Montari Chem Care Investments Ltd. , Montari Agro Chem Investments Ltd. , Montari Leather Ltd. , Montari Financial services Ltd. and Montari Inks Ltd. The respondent and its subsidiaries are said to be manufacturing products like chemicals agro-chemicals, paints cosmetics, pharmaceuticals, leather articles, tea, coffee, clothing carpets, inks, food articles etc. The respodent also claims to have a. turn over of Rs. 90 crores.

( 4 ) THE appellant, on the other hand, M/s. Montary Oveseas Ltd. was incorporated on April 21, 1993. It is claimed that the fields of operation of the appellant and the respondent companies are different as the later is involved in production of worsted yarn and sale and purchase of blends, acrylic and hosiery. It is not disputed that the factory of the appllant was under construction when the suit was filed and had not been completed when the impugned order was passed by the learned single Judge. The appellant came out with public issues which opened on January 10, 1995 and closed on January 20, 1995.

( 5 ) ON coming to know of the existence of the appellant on its entry in the capital market, the respodent instituted a suit (being Suit No. 43/95) on January 4, 1995 for permanent and mandatory injunction and damages. The respodent also moved an application (1. A. 129/95) praying for injunctive relief. In that application a composite prayer seeking an ad-interim ex-parte injunction restraining the defendant from using, trading and making public issue under the name Montari Overseas Limited, was made. The prayer was as follow :-

"pass an ad-interim exparte injunction restraining the defendant, their agents, servants and/or anyone claming under them from using trading and from entering the capital market and making public issue under the name montari Overseas Limited. "

( 6 ) IN so far as the prayer of the respondent regarding the public issue was concerned, the same was not granted by the learned single Judge in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund vs. Kartick Das, 1994 (4) SCC 225 However, in regard to the use of corporate name by the appellant, the learned single Judge, as noted above, passed a restraint order on March 1, 1995.

( 7 ) WHILE passing the order, learned single Judge observed as fallows :-

"the trend of judicial opinion is that reputation or goodwill in business generally attaches with the trade name adopted by a house. Such reputation or goodwill would be protected by the court. Copying of the name by a competitor is likely to cause an injury to its business. No one is entitled to commence or carry on business in such a way as to represent it to be the business of someone else or at the least associated with such someone else. If a person or house uses a name which is likely to deceive and divert the business of some one else to him or is likely to cause confusion in the mind of the person likely to deal with such competing business house, then the impugend action or intended action would be prevented by the course on the same principles which are applicable to ordinary cases of passing off relating to sale of goods. Innocence of the defendant is no defence. The law applies with more rigour when the defendant is an inanimate person such as a company and when the name consists of a coined word".

( 8 ) THE first ground of attack against the order of the learned single Judge is ba

Click Here to Read the rest of this document