-: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1296 OF 2008 Lokhandwala Builders Private Limited : Petitioner V/s. Union of India & Ors. : Respondents ... Mr.Zubin Kamdin i/b. Mr.Avesh Keysar for the petitioner. Mr.Mandar Goswami for respondent no.1. Mr.I.M.Chagla, Senior Advocate, with Mr.Virag Tulzapurkar, Senior Advocate i/b. M/s.Wadia Ghandy & Co., for resp.no.3. ... CORAM : S.B.MHASE & A.A.KUMBHAKONI,JJ. DATE : JUNE 25, 2008. P.C. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. The order passed by the Joint Director (Technical) for Regional Director dated 24.3.2008 is under challenge. The petitioner preferred a rectification application under section 22 of the Companies Act, 1956. The petitioner has been informed by the impugned reply that since in a civil suit, the same grievance is being agitated before this Court, it cannot pass an order in respect of the rectification application under section 22 of the -: 2 :- Companies Act till the disposal of the case by this Court. 3. It is an admitted fact on record that the petitioner has already filed two suits in this Court. Suit no.3979 of 2002 has been filed as against M/s.Lokhandwala Builders. Suit no.2442 of 2007 has been filed as against "Lokandwala Construction Industries Pvt. Ltd." The name of the petitioner is "Lokhandwala Builders Private Limited" whereas the name of the defendant in Suit no.3979 of 2002 is "Lokhandwala Builders" while the name of the defendant in Suit no.2442 of 2007 is "Lokhandwala Builders Pvt. Ltd." In view of the similarity of the names, the petitioner has filed the suits relying upon sub-section (2) of section 27 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. Sub-section (1) of section 27 states that no person shall be entitled to institute any proceeding to prevent, or to recover damages for, the infringement of an unregistered trade mark. Sub-section (2) provides that nothing in this Act shall be deemed to affect rights of action against any person for passing off goods or services as the goods of another person or as services provided by another person, or the remedies in respect thereof. Therefore, alleging similarity in the name of Lokhandwala, the petitioner has filed the aforesaid suits to prevent the defendants therein from using the name of Lokhandwala. -: 3 :- 4. When the matter appeared before this Court in Notice of Motion no.3300 of 2007 in Suit no.2442 of 2007, the learned counsel for the defendants therein on instructions made a statement that the defendant no.1 assures not to commence any commercial activity and not to enter into any commercial activity till the hearing of the Motion. The said assurance was accepted by this Court by an order dated 4.9.2007 and, therefore, no interim order has been passed. Admittedly both these suits are pending. Naturally, in this suit, the Court will be considering the issue in respect of similarity of the names and the contention of the petitioners in that regard. 5. While the above suits were pending, the petitioners relied upon sections 20 and 22 of the Companies Act. Section 158 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and the Schedule thereunder by incorporation amends sections 20 and 22. The powers which have been stated in sections 20 and 22 are of the Central Government to consider the desirability of any claim, etc., as stated in the said two sections. Therefore, the petitioner made an application to the Regional Director, Western Region, Department of Company Affairs, Government of India. Since according to the petitioner, the powers have been delegated to the said authority by Notification GSR No.288(E) dated 31.5.1991, in the said application, a prayer was made to direct the -: 4 :- company to change its name by invoking the power under section 22(1) of the Companies Act. 6. What we find on going through the suits and the application is that the foundation of all these matters is one and the same. 7. Taking into consideration all these aspects, it appears that the concerned authority has informed that since a civil suit is pending before the High Curt, the office of the Regional Director, Western Region, cannot pass any order in respect of rectification till the disposal of the suit by the High Court. What we find is that when the matters are pending substantially in respect of the subject-matter before two or three authorities, there is a likelihood of conflicting decisions. In order to avoid such contingency, it is always expected that the latter authority withholds its hands till the earlier authority decides the matter. We also find that this principle has been incorporated in section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure also. 8. Therefore, we find that the authority rightly withheld its decision on the application of the petitioner till the disposal of the suit. What we find is that they have not decided not to exercise their power. The decision -: 5 :- impugned is only to postpone the exercise of that power till the adjudication of the case by the High Court. We find that the impugned decision has been taken by that authority, in accordance with judicial disciplines and propriety as required in the circumstances of the case. Therefore, no interference is called for in the same. 9. The Writ Petition is rejected. (A.A. KUMBHAKONI, J.) (S.B. MHASE, J.)