The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the decision-making process leading to the issuance of a certificate of incorporation to adhere to the legal obligations under Sections 20, 21, and 22 of the Companies Act and to uphold principles of natural justice.

By consent the main writ petition is taken up for disposal. The prayer in the writ petition is to issue of writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the certificate of incorporation dated 24.10.2008 issued by the third respondent for registration of Accura Electrodes India Private Limited Company, with address at 33, Nehru Street, Thottapalayam Road, Chinniampalayam Post, Coimbatore-641 062, and to direct the second respondent to forward to the first respondent for passing orders on the application under Section 22 of the Companies Act dated 29.08.2008.

2. Facts:-

M/s.Accura Weldrods, hereinafter referred to as the firm, was a registered partnership firm, which came into being pursuant to a deed of partnership dated 10.04.2000 and the respondents 4 and 5 were its partners. The firm was reconstituted by a deed dated 14.05.2003, by which the petitioner was admitted as one of the partners and the fifth respondent retired from the partnership firm. Pursuant to a deed of retirement dated 22.06.2008, the fourth respondent retired from the firm and the partnership was reconstituted by a deed of reconstitution dated 22.06.2008, consisting of the petitioner and his wife Tmt. G.Karpagam as partners. A Memorandum of agreement for noncompete and usage of trade mark registration was entered into between the petitioner and his wife as parties of the first part, the partnership firm as party of the second part and the fourth respondent as party of the third part. A deed of assignment dated 04.07.2008 was executed by the fourth respondent in favour of the petitioner and his wife, trading as a registered partnership firm. The dispute which has resulted in this writ petition appears to have commenced, when the fourth and fifth respondents incorporated the company under the name and style of Accura Weldrods India Private Limited for which the certificate of incorporation was issued by the third respondent on 21.07.2008. The Directors of the said company were the fourth and fifth respondents. It is seen that the petitioner herein and his wife submitted an application before the Registrar of Trademarks on 31.07.2008 for registering the mark Accura Weldrods, claiming user since 12.07.2000. This application is stated to be pending. It is the further case of the petitioner that during August 2008, he came to know that the respondents 4 & 5 have incorporated a company under the name and style Accura Weldrods India Private Limited and on coming to the know on the same the partnership firm represented by the petitioner as Managing Partner caused a legal notice dated 29.08.2008 to the second respondent with copies marked to the third respondent and Accura Weldrods, Coimbatore. In the legal notice, the petitioner by relying upon the various documents executed by the fourth respondent stated that the name of the company, which was incorporated as Accura Weldrods India Private Limited, resembles the name of the firm and that the fourth respondent has no right to start a company under the said name as he has relinquished his rights and that he has suppressed the fact before he incorporated the company. The petitioner also stated about his application before the trademark Registry for registering the name "Accura Weldrods". (Though, in the legal notice, it was claimed that it is a registered mark, the learned counsel for the petitioner would fairly submit that only an application had been presented and the same was pending with the trademark registry). Based on the above statements, the petitioner called upon the second respondent to change the name of the company M/s.Accura Weldrods India Private Limited. Along with the legal notice, copies of 12 documents were enclosed in the support of his petitioners claim. This legal notice was received by the second respondent on 12.09.2008 as seen from the postal acknowledgment card. Thereafter, the fourth respondent by letter dated 24.09.2008 addressed to the third respondent stated that he is the one of the