The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of limitation laws, the need for reasonable diligence, and the exclusive nature of the suo-motu power vested with the Central Government under Section 16(1)(a) of the Companies Act, 2013.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petitions are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the second respondent and thereby quashing the Order No.4/Sec16/06/2017-18 dated 22.02.2018 passed by respondent No.2 and consequently to direct the second respondent to consider the representation in SRN No.G 10671865/05.09.2016 for rectification of company name under Section 16 (1) (b) of the Companies Act, 2013.)

Common Order:

1. These four writ petitions have been filed challenging four different impugned orders all dated 22.02.2018 passed by the second respondent rejecting the petitioner's applications filed under section 16(1)(a) of the Companies Act, 2013 seeking for changing the name of the respective third respondent Company on the ground that the name is identical with or too nearly resembles the petitioner's name.

2. The petitioner has challenged the impugned orders on the following grounds:

(a) Impugned orders, all dated 22.02.2018, have been passed by total non application of mind to section 16(1)(a) of the Companies Act, 2013. According to the petitioner, the said provision does not specify any period of limitation as was the case in section 22(1)(ii)(b) of the Companies Act, 1956.

(b) The Companies Act, 2013 came into effect on 01.04.2014 repealing the old Companies Act, 1956. The petitioner has filed the applications under section 16(1)(a) of the Companies Act, 2013 on 12.05.2017 prior to the date of general circular No.04/17 dated 16.05.2017.

(c) The general circular No.04/17 dated 16.05.2017 is applicable only to those applicants whose application was rejected by the Regional Director earlier under section 22(1)(ii)(b) of the Companies Act, 1956 on the ground that the said applications were made beyond the prescribed period of twelve months. According to the petitioner, Section 22(1)(ii)(b) of the Companies Act, 1956 has no bearing if an application has been filed afresh under section 16(1)(a) of the Companies Act, 2013, as the petitioner never filed an application under section 22(1)(ii)(b) of the Companies Act, 1956 earlier before the Companies Act, 2013 came into effect.

(d) The petitioner was incorporated in the year 1978 and its chairman who is the founder of the petitioner company is a registered trademark user since 1964, whereas the respective third respondent was incorporated only much later.

3. Counter affidavits have been filed by respective third respondents stating as follows:

(a) They were incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and its founding directors are descendants of the eminent industrialist T.T.Krishnamachari, the former Union Finance Minister of India.

(b) The respective third respondent has bonafidely adopted its name from the initials of T.T.Krishnamachari and his descendants. Late T.T.Krishnamachari was a pioneer in the industrial scene of India. They have a well established mark presence and their turn over is huge. The mark 'T.T.' used in combination with various businesses includes but not limited to services pertaining to logistics, Insurance, Aviation and has tremendous goodwill and brand recognition due to the excellent quality of products and services rendered as evidenced by the outstanding turnover, market share and customer loyalty for the eminent mark TT.

(c) They have extensively promoted the wide and continuous use of the service mark/ trading style through various advertisements including electronic and print media, creating exceptional brand recognition and customer loyalty.

(d) The petitioner herein filed civil suits before the Delhi High Court in C.S.(OS) No.101 of 2008 & C.S.(OS) No.102 of 2008 seeking to restrain the third respondent from using the mark "TT Services" and "TT Logistics" respectively. The Delhi High Court by its order dated 20.02.2013, dismissed the said suits filed by the