The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the limitation period under Section 16 of the Companies Act, 2013, and the application of the new enactment replacing the old Act.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer:Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Prohibition, prohibiting the 1st respondent from exercising jurisdiction in the impugned proceedings before the 1st respondent, pertaining to the application filed by the 2nd respondent under Section 16 of the Companies Act, 2013, for rectification of the name of M/s.Sri Krishna Sweets and Food Products (Chennai) Pvt. Ltd., and to direct the 1 st respondent to terminate the said proceedings with immediate effect as the same are wholly lacking in jurisdiction and unconstitutional.)

1. The petitioner seeks a writ of prohibition calling for the records of the first respondent, being the Joint Director, Ministry of Corporate Affairs (R1) and a direction to him to terminate the proceedings pending before him, with immediate effect. The premise of the challenge is that the proceedings are lacking in jurisdiction and ex-facie, barred by limitation.

2. The second respondent, Sri Krishna Sweets Pvt. Ltd., had filed an application on 27th October 2016 under Section 16 of the Companies Act, 2013 (in short ‘2013 Act’) seeking rectification of the name of the petitioner ‘Sri Krishna Sweets and Food Products (Chennai) Pvt. Ltd.’ on the ground of similarity in the name of the petitioner to the registered name/marks claimed as owned by R2.

3. The facts, as narrated by Mr.Satish Parasaran, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Mr.R.Parthasarathy, learned counsel on record for the petitioner, are as follows. The Managing Directors of the petitioner and second respondent company, are brothers. The name ‘Sri Krishna’ had been identified and adopted for use in the business by their father Late N.K.Mahadeva Iyer in 1948 and thereafter used consensually by both brothers.

4. While this is so and the common understanding was that both brothers had equal claim to the name, a dispute was raised somewhere in September, 2015 by the MD of R2, seeking exclusive claim to the same.

5. R2 instituted a Suit, i.e., O.S.No.425 of 2016, on the file of the District Court, Coimbatore seeking an injunction as against the petitioner for use of the name and mark ‘Sri Krishna’. An order had been passed on 05.06.2017 in I.A.Nos.886, 887 and 888 of 2016 dismissing the interim applications with costs.

6. As against that order, C.M.A.Nos.2266 to 2268 of 2017 had come to be filed before this Court and by order dated 18.09.2017 this Court dismissed the appeals, thereby confirming the dismissal of the interim prayers by the Trial Court. A direction was issued to III Additional District Judge, Coimbatore to dispose the Suit within a period of one year from date of receipt of that order. It is yet pending.

7. While this is so, the petitioner received, on 25.11.2016, a notice from R1 in regard to the application filed by R2 seeking rectification of the name of the petitioner. The pleadings in this Writ Petition touch upon the disputes qua the parties concerning Intellectual Property Rights (IPR), for the reason that at the time of institution of the Writ Petition on 28.02.2017, matters were still at large before the Civil Court.

8. However, today Mr.Athiban Vijay, learned counsel on behalf of Mr.K.Gowtham Kumar, learned counsel for R2, confirms that, no dispute is now raised qua the issue of IPR as those issues are pending before the civil courts. His statement is recorded and the arguments thus proceed on the other grounds.

9. In the counter filed on 24.11.2022, R2 has made a clear distinction between the proceedings pending before the Civil Court and the proceedings at issue in this Writ Petition. This distinction is well founded, as nowhere in the course of this order have I made or intended to make any observations that would touch upon the disposal of the Civil Suit between the parties involving their intellectual property rights.

10. The petitioner responded to the notice and hearing commenced before R1. The first hearing was on 25.01.2017 when it was adjourned at request of R