Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 1]

Gujarat High Court

Sahajanand Technologies Private ... vs Regional Director - North Western ... on 4 July, 2014

Author: Akil Kureshi

Bench: Akil Kureshi, Mohinder Pal

           C/LPA/428/2014                                      ORDER




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 428 of 2014

            In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3994 of 2013

================================================================
      SAHAJANAND TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED....Appellant(s)
                               Versus
    REGIONAL DIRECTOR - NORTH WESTERN REGION - MINISTRY OF &
                         2....Respondent(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MR DHAVAL SHAH, ADVOCATE for the Appellant(s) No. 1
NANAVATI ASSOCIATES, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 2
================================================================

          CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
                 and
                 HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL

                              Date : 04/07/2014


                                ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI)   The appellant has challenged the judgement of the learned  Single   Judge   rejecting   the   petition.   In   the   writ   petition,   the  appellant   had   challenged   the   decision   of   Regional   Director   of  North   Western   Region,     Ahmedabad   dated   25.10.2012   in  application   under   section   22   of   the   Companies   Act,   1956  objecting to the respondent herein using the name  "Sahajanand  Laser Technology Private Limited" for its company. The Regional  Director held that the application cannot be decided at this stage  on   the   ground   that   such   matter   is   sub­judice.   Same   was  accordingly   rejected.   The   Regional   Director   was   of   the   opinion  Page 1 of 2 C/LPA/428/2014 ORDER that since trademark proceedings between the parties have given  rise to multiple Court cases, some of which pending before this  Court, the application  of the petitioner under section 22 of the  Companies Act cannot be decided. 

  Learned   counsel   Shri   Surya   Narayan   for   the   appellant  submitted  that  trade  mark proceedings  and proceedings  under  section   22   of   the   Companies   Act   are   distinct   and   separate.  Outcome of the pending proceedings under the Trade Mark Act  can have no bearing on the petitioner's application under section  22 of the  Companies Act.

  Issue requires consideration. Appeal is therefore, admitted  and shall be placed for final hearing on 6.8.2014. Shri Nanavati  waived notice of admission on behalf of the respondent. 

(AKIL KURESHI, J.) (MOHINDER PAL, J.) raghu Page 2 of 2