Jurisdiction under Article 226 only applies if part of the cause of action arises within the territory; since the company is registered in Tamil Nadu, the writ petition in Kerala is not maintainable.

1. The correctness and sustainability of Ext. P14 order passed by the 2nd respondent in a petition filed under Section 22 of the Indian Companies Act, 1956 is under challenge in this writ petition, while, the very maintainability of the writ petition is challenged by the first respondent, by filing IA No. 3562 of 2013, praying to have it decided as a preliminary issue.

2. The sequence of events is as follows:
A common factor (the word 'Mather') appears in the name of the petitioner as well as in the name of the first respondent. The first respondent Company was registered with its registered office in Kochi, Kerala, before the Registrar of Companies, Ernakulam as early as in the 1944. Ext. P1 is the Memorandum of Association of the first respondent Company. The petitioner Company was registered before the Registrar of Companies, Tamil Nadu, Coimbatore and Ext. P2 forms the Memorandum of Association and Articles of Association in respect of the petitioner Company. The first respondent has obtained the Certificates of Registration of Trade Mark under Section 23(2) read with Rule 62(1) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, as borne by Exts. P3 and P4.

3. On coming across the registration of the petitioner Company with the name as registered and in view of the adverse consequences which results in connection with the nature of the business being pursued by the first respondent Company and similar business sought to be pursued by the petitioner, Ext. P5 application was filed by the first respondent under Section 22 of the Companies Act, 1956 , before the second respondent for rectification of the name of the petitioner Company, who was shown as the respondent therein.

4. On receipt of the application, the second respondent called for the comments of the Registrar of Companies as well as the respondent therein, who is the petitioner herein. A detailed statement of objection was filed from the part of the petitioner herein with reference to the factual situation and the relevant provisions of law. After hearing, the second respondent passed Ext. P14 order dated 07/02/2013, whereby Ext. P5 application was allowed and the respondent in the said application was directed to delete the word 'MATHER' from its name, which in turn is under challenge in this writ petition.

5. When the matter came up for admission before this Court on 22/02/2013, the maintainability of the writ petition was doubted and hence 'Notice on Admission' was issued on that date, simultaneously directing to maintain status quo with regard to implementation of Ext. P14 till the next date of posting.

6. On coming to know about the filing of this writ petition, the first respondent entered appearance and filed IA 3562 of 2013 raising the question of maintainability. It was accordingly, that the matter was listed before the Bench on 07/03/2013.

7. The parties were heard on the question of maintainability.

8. Mr. Harikrishnan, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the writ petition is maintainable before this Court, as part of the cause of action had arisen in Kerala. It is stated that the first respondent Company, which had been registered in the State of Kerala, as borne by Ext. P2, filed Ext. P5 application under Section 22 of the Companies Act, before the second respondent, which is situated in Chennai, for the reason that the said authority is having jurisdiction in the State of Kerala as well. The second respondent has wide jurisdiction over a vase area and the alleged intrusion or encroachment into the business activities of the first respondent and the adverse circumstances are stated as resulted in Kerala and as such, the cause of action has partly arisen in Kerala as well, sub