JUDGMENT :

Prathiba M. Singh, J.

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. The writ petition has been filed by Petitioner No.1- Pure Cure Ayurveda Pvt. Ltd., which was incorporated in 2017, and Petitioner No.2- Arun Thamarasseri Narayanan challenging the incorporation of the Respondent No.3 under the name ‘Purecure Pvt. Ltd.’ which was incorporated on 11th April, 2020.

3. The case of the Petitioner is that, post its incorporation in 2017, it has been dealing with ayurvedic products under the following trademark:

4. The Petitioners seek cancellation/ rectification of the name of Respondent No.3 on the ground that it resembles the name of its company and its business. The prayer in this writ petition is as under:

“[A] Issue a Writ, Order or Direction in the nature of Certiorari or any other Writ, Order or Direction thereby calling the records from the Respondent and thereafter setting aside/quashing the incorporation of the Respondent No. 3 as a company bearing Corporate Identity No. U24290DL2020PTC363236 with the corporate name 'PURE CURE PRIVATE LIMITED' as well as the Certificate of Incorporation dated 11.04.2020 (Annexure-L); and

[B] Pass such other and further Order[s] as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case and in the interest of justice.”

5. Mr. Hrishikesh Baruah, ld. Counsel submits that, initially, the Petitioners had filed an application in terms of Form No.INC 1 seeking ‘reservation’ of the name "Pure Cure Ayurveda Private Limited" which was rejected by the ROC on the basis of the existence of another company by the name "Pure and Cure Healthcare Private Limited". However, surprisingly, a name almost identical to what was sought to be reserved by the Petitioner was, thereafter, permitted to be used by Respondent No.3. He, further, submits that both the names of the Petitioner and the Respondent No.3 are similar. The Petitioners have substantial revenues of more than Rs.3 crores in the financial year 2019-20. It is, thus, submitted that the incorporation of Respondent No.3 company is contrary to law as is evident from a reading of Sections 4 and 16 of the Companies Act, 2013.

6. After notice was issued in this writ petition, Respondent No.3 has filed an affidavit stating as under:

“3. I state that without prejudice to the submissions made by Respondent no.3 in its Reply filed before this Hon'ble Court in the present proceedings, the management of Respondent 3 has now decided to approach Respondent No.2 with appropriate application seeking striking down of Respondent No.3 Company under the provisions of the Companies Act, 2013 as it does want to continue in any litigation or unhealthy competition with the Petitioner. Further, in the wake of disruptions caused by COVID-19 pandemic, Respondent No.3 intends to minimize its litigation and compliance costs and expenses.

4. I state that however, Respondent No.3 is unable to file such an application for striking off the company i.e. Pure Cure Private Limited in view of pendency of the present Writ Petition.

5. I state that Respondent No.3 undertakes to file appropriate application before Respondent No.2 seeking striking down of the Respondent No.3 Company under the provisions of the Companies Act, 2013, and therefore, in the interest of justice Respondent No.3 may be absolved from the present proceedings and the present writ petition may be disposed off with directions to the Respondent No.2 to consider such application, as and when filed by Respondent No.3, in accordance with law.”

7. A perusal of the above paragraphs of the affidavit filed on behalf of Respondent No.3 shows that the said Respondent has in fact approached the ROC for striking down of its name and it does not wish to continue with the name which is under challenge. As per ld. Counsel for Respondent no.3 the promoters of the company have already decided not to continue with the company.

8. Today, ld. Counsel for Respondent No.3 submits that there is a tec