1. The plaintiff Union has instituted this suit, (i) for permanent injunction restraining the defendant No.1 Union, its office bearers and members from using or carrying on trade union activities under the name of “Food Corporation of India (Handling) Workers Union” and using the logo as appearing in its Letter Heads; and, (ii) for declaration, declaring the registration of the defendant No.1 Union under the Trade Unions Act, 1926 as nullity, being in violation of Section 7 of the said Act.

2. The suit was entertained.

3. On application of the plaintiff Union for interim relief, vide consent order dated 3rd December, 2007, it was ordered that the defendant No.1 Union shall change its name to “FCI Handling-Workers Union”. The counsel for the defendant No.1 Union informs that the defendant No.1 Union has since been using the said name, though has not registered the said changed name with the Registrar of Trade Unions.

4. Though issues have been framed in the suit and trial has commenced but the matter was listed before this Court yesterday on the application of the defendant No.1 Union for dismissal of suit on the ground that the members of the plaintiff Union had passed a resolution for dissolution of the plaintiff Union; that the same was accepted by the Registrar of Trade Unions who revoked the registration of the plaintiff Union; the defendant No.1 Union had earlier applied for dismissal of the suit on this ground but the said application was not pressed as the plaintiff Union had filed a civil suit challenging the revocation of its registration and in which an interim stay of the order of the Registrar of revocation of registration of the plaintiff Union had been granted; that the said interim order has since been vacated and the appeals thereagainst have been dismissed.

5. However, when the matter came up yesterday, it was enquired from the counsel for the plaintiff Union as to how the plaintiff Union could restrain another Union, also of the workers of Food Corporation of India, from calling itself a Union of the Workers of Food Corporation of India and as to how the plaintiff Union can be said to have proprietary rights over the words “Food Corporation of India” or its workers’ union.

6. On request of counsels for parties, the matter was adjourned for consideration on this aspect to today.

7. The counsel for the plaintiff Union has today contended that the right of the plaintiff Union to restrain the defendant No.1 Union from using the same name as the plaintiff Union stems from Section 7 of the Trade Union Act. It is further contended that the defendant No.1 Union, to obtain registration, filed an undertaking before the Registrar to the effect that there was no other Union of the same name and which undertaking is apparently false. The counsel further invites attention to Sections 10 & 11 of the said Act, which provide for cancellation of registration and appeals against the order of the Registrar. The counsel, on enquiry, informs that the only effect of non-registration of a Trade Union is that it does not have collective bargaining power with the Management.

8. Having gone through the provisions of Sections 7, 10 & 11 supra, it has further been enquired from the counsel for the plaintiff Union, whether the plaintiff Union applied to the Registrar of Trade Unions under Section 10(b) of the Act for cancellation of the registration in favour of the defendant No.1 Union on the ground of the defendant No.1 Union having obtained the registration by filing a false undertaking to the effect that there was no other Trade Union by the said name and if the plaintiff Union has not done so, how the plaintiff Union can file this suit impugning the decision of the Registrar of registration of the defendant No.1 Union, particularly when an appeal is also provided under Section 11 of the Act against the orders of the Registrar and which appears to be a complete code.

9. The counsel for the plaintiff Union in this regard has drawn at