IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 8034 of 2001 Between: M/s Bharathi Mobitel Ltd., Rep. By its Managing Director B.G.K. Murthy ..... PETITIONER AND 1. The Regional Director, Department of Company Affairs, Southern Region, C hennai. 2. Bharti Mobile Ltd., NO. 47, Millers Tank Bund Road, Bangalorel 560052. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or direction calling for the records relating to the impugned order dated 1st March, 2001 passed by the first respondent under Section22 of the Companies Act and quash the same and pass such other orders as may be deemed fit in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.RAGHAVA CHARYULU Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.SREENATH PATCHIPULUSU The Court made the following : THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 8034 OF 2001 ORDER 1. The petitioner calls in question in this writ petition the order dated 1-3- 2001 passed by the department of Company Affairs, southern region, Chennai on an application filed under Section 22 of the Companies Act, 1956. 2. The facts of the case in brief are:- The 2nd respondent filed application under Section 22 of the Companies Act, 1956 before the Department of Company Affairs, southern region, Chennai alleging that the petitioner herein copied its domain name of ‘Bharti” by disseminating the same to ‘Bharathi’ apart from that, the name of M/s Bharathi is too nearer to resembling its name. The application filed by the 2nd respondent before the Department of Company affairs, southern region, Chennai came to be considered and the authorities proceeded to pass the impugned order directing the petitioner herein to change its name appropriately within three months. The said order is assailed in this writ petition. 3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the order impugned in the writ petition. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the word ‘Bharth’ is a geographical name and no one has exclusive right over it and therefore the order is liable to be set aside. 5. Under Section 22 of the Companies Act if the authorities noticed the similar names of the companies, the subsequent company is required to change its name. For better appreciation I may refer section 22 of the Companies Act, which reads as hereunder. “ Sec. 22: Rectification of name of Company: If through inadvertence or otherwise, a company on its first registration or on its registration by a new name is registered by a name which:- (1) In the opinion of the Central Government, is identical with or too nearly resembles, the name by which a company is in existence has been previously registered, whether under this Act or any other previous Companies Law, the first mentioned company or (2) On an application by a registered proprietor of a trade mark, is in the opinion of the Central Government identical with, or too nearly resembles, a registered trade mark of such proprietor under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, such company – (a) May, by ordinary resolution or with the previous approval of the Central Government signified in writing, change its name or new name; and (b) Shall, if the Central Government so directs within twelelve months of its first registration or registration by its new name or the case may be or within tweleve months of the commencement of this Act, whichever is later, by ordinary resolution and with the previous approval of the Central Government signified in writing, change its name or new name within a period of three months from the date of the direction or such longer period as the Central Government may think fit to allow: (Provided that no application under clause-(ii) made by a registered proprietor of a Trade Mark after five years of coming to notice of registration of the company shall be considered by the Central Government.) (2( if a company makes default in complying with any direction given under clause (b) of sub-section (1), the company, and every Officer who is in default, shall be punishable with fine which may extent to (Rs.1,000/-) per every day during which the default continues.” 6. As seen from the narration of the facts in para 11 of the order impugned in the writ petition, the 2nd respondent company registered with Registrar of Companies on 29-3-2000 and its trade name is M/s Bharath Mobile Limited and whereas the petitioner herein got registered with Registrar of Companies as M/s Bharath Mobile Limited on 22-5-2000. It is beyond pale of the controversy that the 2nd respondent name got its registered trade name much earlier to the petitioner getting registered its trade name. Names of the petitioner and the 2nd respondent are identical and in view of Section 22 of the Companies Act, the petitioner herein has to necessarily change its name. 7. I do not see any flaw in the order passed by the department of Company Affairs, southern region, Chennai. 8. Accordingly, this writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________________ Justice B. Seshasayana Reddy 12th June, 2009. KM THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 8034 OF 2001 12th June, 2009.