Telangana High Court
Luker Ecommerce Private Limited vs The Union Of India on 30 September, 2024
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.26941 of 2024
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed praying this Court to declare the action of respondent No.2 in not supplying/furnishing a copy of the order, dated 12.09.2023 passed in Case No.(File No.11/RD(SER)/ Sec.16/F08583296/03/2022 and SRN, F08583296) under Section 16-B of the Companies Act, 2013 and also not considering the petitioner's representations through e-mails dated 07.02.2024, 14.02.2024, 21.02.2024 and 16.09.2024 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India and consequently, prayed to direct respondent No.2 to forthwith furnish the information as sought by the petitioner and for other appropriate reliefs.
2. The petitioner claims to be a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 2013 (for short "the Act") and also registered with the Ministry of Corporate Affairs. The case of the petitioner is that respondent No.3 herein has filed a complaint against the petitioner-company 2 CVBR, J Wp_26941_2024 vide complaint in File No. 11/RD(SER)/ Sec.16/ F08583296/03/2022 and SRN, F08583296 alleging that the name of respondent No.3 was similar to the name of the petitioner company and was likely to cause confusion. It is the further case of the petitioner that soon after coming to know about the complaint being filed against the petitioner company, the petitioner made representations through e- mails, dated 07.02.2024, 14.02.2024 and 21.02.2024 requesting the respondent authorities to furnish the copies of the relevant applications as well as the orders passed by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs on the complaint filed by respondent No.3 herein. The grievance of the petitioner is that even after receiving the said representations, the respondent authorities have not furnished any information as sought by it.
3. Ms.N.V.R.Rajya Lakshmi, learned counsel representing Sri Gadi Praveen Kumar, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2, has submitted that respondent No.3 has filed a complaint against the petitioner under Section 16 (1) (b) of 3 CVBR, J Wp_26941_2024 the Act before the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Hyderabad, alleging that the petitioner has violated the provisions of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and the Rules made thereunder. Learned counsel placed on record the orders, dated 12.01.2024 passed by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Hyderabad, wherein the application filed by respondent No.3 has been dismissed, however, liberty was granted to respondent No.3 to file a fresh application, if it so desires, after the dispute/objection with regard to the Trade Mark resolved by the appropriate forum, since, at this stage, the application under Section 16 (1) (b) of the Act does not require any intervention or order by the Regional Director.
4. The main grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is that even after disposal of the application filed by respondent No.3, certain other applications/cases have been filed by respondent No.3 and the same are pending consideration before the Ministry of Corporate Affairs and hence, prays this Court to direct respondents furnish the copies of all the applications/orders in the proceedings 4 CVBR, J Wp_26941_2024 instituted by respondent No.3 against the petitioner company.
5. In view of the above submissions and since the petitioner is seeking a direction to consider the applications filed for supply of the applications/cases filed by respondent No.3 against the petitioner, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing respondent No.2 to furnish all the documents sought by the petitioner through representations, dated 07.02.2024, 14.02.2024 and 21.02.2024 including the applications and orders passed under Section 16 (1) (b) of the Act against the petitioner, within a period of two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, to enable the petitioner to avail the remedies as available in accordance with law before the forums established under the provisions of the Act or in accordance with the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
6. With the above observations, this Writ Petition is disposed. However, the petitioner is permitted to make a fresh application, seeking copies of relevant documents/applications filed by respondent No.3 and the 5 CVBR, J Wp_26941_2024 orders on the cases instituted by respondent No.3. On such application being made respondent No.2 is directed to pass appropriate orders, as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of two (02) days from the date of receipt of such application.
7. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
____________________________ JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY 30.09.2024 gkv