IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 22ND AUGUST 2008 / 31ST SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 23460 of 2008(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ---------------------- COROUS KURIES (P) LTD., K.K.FRANCIS BUILDING (FIRST FLOOR), HIGH ROAD, THRISSUR -680 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, SHRI K.O.JOSE. BY ADV. SRI.K.JAYAKUMAR SRI.P.B.KRISHNAN RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES, KERALA & LAKSHADWEEP, FIRST FLOOR, COMPANY LAW BHAVAN, B.M.C.ROAD, THRIKKAKARA, KOCHI - 682 021. 2. CHORUS KURIES & LOANS (P) LTD., GURUVAYOOR ROAD, KUNNAMKULAM 680 503, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, K.T.SIMON. BY ADV. SRI.K.SANIL KUMAR, ADDL.CGSC FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P(C).No. 23460/2008. APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1A. COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DTD.21.4.08 BY R1. P1B. COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION DTD.2.4.08. P2. COPY OF THE PETITION BY R2 DTD.2.6.08. P3. COPY OF THE LETTER DTD.12.6.08 BY R1. P4. COPY OF THE LETTER TO R1 DTD.24.6.08. P5A. COPY OF THE LETTER DTD.2.7.08 BY R1. P5B. COPY OF THE LETTER DTD.9.7.08 BY R1. P6. COPY OF THE LETTER BY R1 DTD.16.7.08. P7. COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DTD.17.7.08 BY R1. Sdk+ ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No.23460 of 2008 ================== Dated this the 22nd day of August, 2008 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is aggrieved by Exts.P3 and P7 orders issued by the 1st respondent purportedly under Section 22 of the Companies Act (“the Act” for short). The 2nd respondent has filed a complaint before the 1st respondent seeking intervention under Section 22 of the Act on the ground that the name of the petitioner company is deceptively similar to that of the 2nd respondent company. The 1st respondent entertained the complaint and issued Exts.P3 and P7 purportedly under Section 22. The contention of the petitioner is that the 1st respondent has no jurisdiction whatsoever to exercise powers under Section 22 of the Act, which vests exclusively with the Central Government or with the authority, if any, to whom the Central Government has delegated powers under Section 22, which the 1st respondent is not. The petitioner, therefore, seeks the following reliefs: “(i) issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direciton, quashing Exts.P3, P5(a) and (b) and P7. w.p.c.23460/08 2 (ii) issue an interim order of stay of operation, enforcement and of all proceedings pursuant to Exts.P3 and P7 pending disposal of the Writ Petition;” 2. Although notice has been served on the 2nd respondent, they have not chosen to appear and contest the matter. The 1st respondent has filed a counter affidavit in which he admits that he has no jurisdiction to deal with the matter under Section 22 of the Act. But he goes on to say that what he intended was only an advice to the petitioner to change their name so as to avoid action under Section 22 of the Act by the Government of India. I am of opinion that, that too, the 1st respondent could not have done. As and when the complaint of the 2nd respondent was received, the 1st respondent ought to have returned that complaint advising the 2nd respondent that his remedy lies in approaching the Government of India under Section 22 of the Act. Therefore, Exts.P3 and P7 are clearly without jurisdiction and same are quashed and the writ petition is allowed. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge w.p.c.23460/08 3