Madras High Court
M/S.T.T.Ltd vs Union Of India on 25 August, 2022
Author: Abdul Quddhose
Bench: Abdul Quddhose
W.P.Nos.52 of 2022 and 5330, 5325 and 5327 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 12.08.2022
PRONOUNCED ON : 25.08.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE
W.P.Nos.52 of 2022 and 5330, 5325 and 5327 of 2020
W.P.No.52 of 2022:
M/s.T.T.Ltd.,
Represented by its Authorised Signatory,
Mahendra kumar Nahata,
S/o Sri Rawat Mal Nahata,
Having its office at
879, Master Prithvi Nath Marg,
Karol Bagh, New Delhi - 110 005. ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.Union of India,
Throught its Secretary,
Ministry of Corporate Affairs,
Govt. of India,
Shastri Bhawan,
New Delhi.
1/26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.52 of 2022 and 5330, 5325 and 5327 of 2020
2.Regional Director,
Office of the Regional Director,
(Southern Region),
Ministry of Corporate Affairs,
5th Floor, Shastri Bhawan,
27 Haddows Road,Chennai - 600 006.
3.M/s.T T Enterprises Private Limited,
Vadhiraja Centre,
1A, 1st Floor, No.351, Avvai Shanmugam Road,
Gopalapuram, Chennai,
Tamil Nadu - 600 086. ...
Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petitions are filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus
calling for the records of the second respondent and thereby quashing
the Order No.4/Sec16/06/2017-18 dated 22.02.2018 passed by
respondent No.2 and consequently to direct the second respondent to
consider the representation in SRN No.G 10671865/05.09.2016 for
rectification of company name under Section 16 (1) (b) of the
Companies Act, 2013.
For Petitioner : Ms.Shilpi Jain
for M/s.R.Sathish Kumar
For Respondents : Mr.R.Subramanian
Additional Central Government
Standing Counsel
for R1 and R2
Mr.Arun C.Mohan
2/26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.52 of 2022 and 5330, 5325 and 5327 of 2020
for R3
COMMON ORDER
These four writ petitions have been filed challenging four different impugned orders all dated 22.02.2018 passed by the second respondent rejecting the petitioner's applications filed under section 16(1)(a) of the Companies Act, 2013 seeking for changing the name of the respective third respondent Company on the ground that the name is identical with or too nearly resembles the petitioner's name.
2. The petitioner has challenged the impugned orders on the following grounds:
(a) Impugned orders, all dated 22.02.2018, have been passed by total non application of mind to section 16(1)(a) of the Companies Act, 2013.
According to the petitioner, the said provision does not specify any period of limitation as was the case in section 22(1)(ii)(b) of the Companies Act, 1956.
(b) The Companies Act, 2013 came into effect on 01.04.2014 repealing the old Companies Act, 1956. The petitioner has filed the applications under section 16(1)(a) of the Companies Act, 2013 on 12.05.2017 prior to the date of general circular No.04/17 dated 16.05.2017.
3/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.52 of 2022 and 5330, 5325 and 5327 of 2020
(c) The general circular No.04/17 dated 16.05.2017 is applicable only to those applicants whose application was rejected by the Regional Director earlier under section 22(1)(ii)(b) of the Companies Act, 1956 on the ground that the said applications were made beyond the prescribed period of twelve months. According to the petitioner, Section 22(1)(ii)(b) of the Companies Act, 1956 has no bearing if an application has been filed afresh under section 16(1)(a) of the Companies Act, 2013, as the petitioner never filed an application under section 22(1)(ii)(b) of the Companies Act, 1956 earlier before the Companies Act, 2013 came into effect.
(d) The petitioner was incorporated in the year 1978 and its chairman who is the founder of the petitioner company is a registered trademark user since 1964, whereas the respective third respondent was incorporated only much later.
3. Counter affidavits have been filed by respective third respondents stating as follows:
(a) They were incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and its founding directors are descendants of the eminent industrialist T.T.Krishnamachari, the former Union Finance Minister of India. 4/26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.52 of 2022 and 5330, 5325 and 5327 of 2020
(b) The respective third respondent has bonafidely adopted its name from the initials of T.T.Krishnamachari and his descendants. Late T.T.Krishnamachari was a pioneer in the industrial scene of India. They have a well established mark presence and their turn over is huge. The mark 'T.T.' used in combination with various businesses includes but not limited to services pertaining to logistics, Insurance, Aviation and has tremendous goodwill and brand recognition due to the excellent quality of products and services rendered as evidenced by the outstanding turnover, market share and customer loyalty for the eminent mark TT.
(c) They have extensively promoted the wide and continuous use of the service mark/ trading style through various advertisements including electronic and print media, creating exceptional brand recognition and customer loyalty.
(d) The petitioner herein filed civil suits before the Delhi High Court in C.S.(OS) No.101 of 2008 & C.S.(OS) No.102 of 2008 seeking to restrain the third respondent from using the mark "TT Services" and "TT Logistics"
respectively. The Delhi High Court by its order dated 20.02.2013, dismissed the said suits filed by the petitioner on merits. 5/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.52 of 2022 and 5330, 5325 and 5327 of 2020
(e) The services rendered by the third respondent cannot be confused with the petitioner's goods as the petitioner's goods are sold across the counter, whereas the services rendered by the third respondent are not sold in such a manner.
(f) The agreement entered into by T.T.K. Tantex Limited with the petitioner in which the said company undertook not to use the mark TT will not be binding on the respective third respondents.
(g) There is no proof to show that the petitioner was dealing with goods/ services falling under the same class under which the respective third respondents were using their respective marks.
(h) The petitioner having failed before the Delhi High Court is indulging in forum shopping to make out baseless claims against the respective third respondents. The petitioner is estopped from re-agitating the very same claim that was made before the Delhi High Court.
(i) The petitioner had preferred an appeal against the order dated 20.02.2013 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court and the same was numbered as FAO (OS) 323 & 324/2013 on the file of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court. The said appeals were also dismissed as withdrawn at the instance of the petitioner by the Division Bench of Delhi 6/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.52 of 2022 and 5330, 5325 and 5327 of 2020 High Court vide Order dated 19.08.2014.
(j) The petitioner herein is a chronic litigant and has tried to stop various other third parties also from using the mark TT in which again it has miserably failed.
(k) The adoption of the mark TT by the respective third respondent as part of the trading style is bonafide and has no connection with the use of the mark TT by the petitioner herein.
Submissions of the learned counsels:
4. Heard Ms.Shilpi Jain, learned counsel, representing Mr.R.Sathish Kumar learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.R.Subramanian, learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Mr.Arun C.Mohan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the third respondent in their submissions reiterated the contents of the respective affidavits filed by the petitioner as well as the respective third respondents before this Court.
7/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.52 of 2022 and 5330, 5325 and 5327 of 2020
6. In support of the petitioner's contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the following authorities / notifications:
a) Comparison Chart of Section 22 of the Companies Act, 1956 and Section 16 of the Companies Act, 2013;
b) Notification No.4090(A) issued by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs dated 19th December, 2016;
c) Clarification Notification dated 16.05.2017 issued by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs on the applicability of Section 16(1)(a) of the Companies Act, 2013;
d) Copy of five different orders passed by the Regional Director (second respondent) under Section 16(1)(a) of the Companies Act, 2013 in favour of the petitioner;
e) A Single Bench Judgment of the Delhi High Court dated
07.07.2017 in W.P.(C ) No.5289 of 2014 and C.M.No.10518 of 2014 in the case of Mondelez Foods Private Limited Vs. The Regional Director (North), Ministry of Corporate Affairs;
f) A Single Bench decision of the Madras High Court dated 13.08.2004 in the case of Lords Insullations India Private Limited Vs. The Regional Director, Department of Company Affairs and Another reported 8/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.52 of 2022 and 5330, 5325 and 5327 of 2020 in 2005 (1) CTC 34;
g) Division Bench Judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of Intelgain Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Regional Director and Another reported in 2014 (1) ALL MR 87.
7. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the respective third respondents relied upon the following authorities:
a) A Division Bench Judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of MRC Logistics Private Limited Vs. Regional Director and Another reported in 2009 SCC Online Bom 769;
b) A decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Wander Ltd. and Another Vs. Antox India P. Ltd. reported in 1990 (Supp) SCC 727.
Findings of the second respondent under the impugned orders:
8. The second respondent under the impugned order dated 22.02.2018 has rejected the applications of the petitioner seeking for rectification of the name of the respective third respondents under Section 16 (1) (a) of the Companies Act, 2013 as not maintainable for the following reasons: 9/26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.52 of 2022 and 5330, 5325 and 5327 of 2020
i) The findings of the Delhi High Court in its order dated 20.02.2013 in C.S. (O.S.) No.101 of 2008 and C.S. (O.S.) No.102 of 2008 have attained finality and is binding on the petitioner. Therefore, the applications filed by the petitioner under Section 16 (1) (a) of the Companies Act, 2013 is hit by the principles of res judicata. The Delhi High Court in the said decision has observed as follows:
"a) Considering the nature of business of the petitioner and the third respondent herein, there is no possibility of any confusion;
b) The petitioner's goods are sold across the counter, whereas the third respondent's service is different."
ii) The respective third respondent Company was admittedly incorporated under the old Companies Act, 1956. The new Companies Act, 2013 came into effect from 01.04.2014. The respective third respondent Company has been in existence prior to 01.04.2014 and the Regional Director could have exercised his power for the rectification of the name of the respective third respondent Company as per the provisions of Section 22 of the old Companies Act, 1956 within one year from the date of incorporation, beyond which, the second respondent does not have authority even under 10/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.52 of 2022 and 5330, 5325 and 5327 of 2020 Section 16 (1) (a) of the new Companies Act, 2013 to direct the respective third respondent to change its name. Hence, the applications filed by the petitioner under section 16 of the Companies Act, 2013 is barred by limitation.
iii) Power under Section 16 (1) (a) of the Companies Act, 2013 is a suo-motu power exercised by the Central Government/ second respondent and an application is not maintainable.
iv) Ministry of Corporate Affairs vide General Circular No.04 of 2017 dated 16.05.2017 has clarified that the applicability of Section 16 (1) (a) of the Companies Act, 2013, wherein the Ministry has observed that the extinguished limitation under the old Section 22 (1) (ii) (b) of the Companies Act, 1956 cannot be considered to be revived even if no limitation period has been prescribed / laid down Section 16 (1) (a) of the new Companies Act, 2013.
Discussion:
9. The law of limitation is based on public interest and is based on three principles which are as follows:
a) Long - dormant claims causes far more cruelty and is 11/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.52 of 2022 and 5330, 5325 and 5327 of 2020 unconscionable.
b) The defendant might have lost the evidence to disprove the claim due to the inordinate delay in prosecuting the claim.
c) The person with good cause of action should pursue the claim with reasonable diligence.
10. The law of limitation is important because it gives certainty and finality to the legal proceedings. It avoids exposure to the risk of litigation for an indefinite period. It is for the general welfare of the public, where the law plays or comes to the aid only for those who are vigilant and knows their rights and the law will not protect those people who are careless about their rights. Thus the rule of Limitation is not meant to destroy the rights of the public, but, to give a certain period to approach the appropriate forum/Court for justice and do not resort to inordinate and unjustified delay.
11. Admittedly, the petitioner has filed the applications under Section 16 (1) (a) of the Companies Act, 2013 seeking for rectification of the respective third respondent's name based on the alleged similarity only on 02.09.2016, though the respective third respondent company were 12/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.52 of 2022 and 5330, 5325 and 5327 of 2020 incorporated under the old Companies Act, 1956 in the year as detailed hereunder:
W.P.No. Name of the respective third Incorporation respondent (Year) 52 / 2022 M/s. T T Enterprises Pvt. Ltd 2000 5325 / 2020 M/s. T T Logistics and Cargo Pvt. Ltd. 2000 5327 / 2020 M/s. T T Insurance Broking Service Pvt. 2000 Ltd.
5330 / 2020 M/s. T T Aviation Handling Services 2007 Pvt. Ltd.
12. Under the old Companies Act, 1956 the provision which enables any applicant to seek for rectification of another Company's name on account of its alleged similarity is Section 22 which reads as follows:
"22. RECTIFICATION OF NAME OF COMPANY (1) 1 [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- (i) in the opinion of the Central Government, is identical with, or too nearly resembles, the name by which a company in existence has been previously registered, whether under this Act or any previous companies law, the firstmentioned company, or (ii) on an application by a registered proprietor of a 13/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.52 of 2022 and 5330, 5325 and 5327 of 2020 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 and 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 twelve months of its first registration or registration by its new name, as the case may be, or within twelve 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. 2 [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 extend to 3 [one thousand] rupees for every day during which the default continues. Page 34 of 332 1. Substituted for the portion 14/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.52 of 2022 and 5330, 5325 and 5327 of 2020 beginning with "If, through" and ending with "the first-mentioned company-" by the Trade Marks Act, 1999. Prior to its substitution the substituted portion read as under : "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, in the opinion of the Central Government, is identical with, or too nearly resembles, the name by which a company in existence has been previously registered, whether under this Act or any previous companies law, the first-mentioned company-" 2. Inserted by the Trade Marks Act, 1999. 3. Substituted for "one hundred" by the Companies (Amendment) Act, 2000 w.e.f. 13-12- 2000."
13. Section 16 (1) (a) of the new Companies Act, 2013 is akin to Section 22 (1) (i) of the old Act. Section 22 (1) (i) of the old Act prescribes a limitation period of twelve months from the date of registration for the Central Government to direct rectification of the name of a Company, whereas under Section 16 (1) (a) of the new Companies Act, 2013, the reference to limitation is omitted. The petitioner claims that due to the said omission, the applications filed by the petitioner under Section 16 (1) (a) of the new Companies Act is not barred by limitation. 15/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.52 of 2022 and 5330, 5325 and 5327 of 2020
14. Section 16 of the new Companies Act, 2013 reads as follows:
16. Rectification of name of company.— (1) 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,— (a) in the opinion of the Central Government, is identical with or too nearly resembles the name by which a company in existence had been previously registered, whether under this Act or any previous company law, it may direct the company to change its name and the company shall change its name or new name, as the case may be, within a period of three months from the issue of such direction, after adopting an ordinary resolution for the purpose; (b) on an application by a registered proprietor of a trade mark that the name is identical with or too nearly resembles to a registered trade mark of such proprietor under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, made to the Central Government within three years of incorporation or registration or change of name of the company, whether under this Act or any previous company law, in the opinion of the Central Government, is identical 16/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.52 of 2022 and 5330, 5325 and 5327 of 2020 with or too nearly resembles to an existing trade mark, it may direct the company to change its name and the company shall change its name or new name, as the case may be, within a period of six months from the issue of such direction, after adopting an ordinary resolution for the purpose. (2) Where a company changes its name or obtains a new name under sub-section (1), it shall within a period of fifteen days from the date of such change, give notice of the change to the Registrar along with the order of the Central Government, who shall carry out necessary changes in the certificate of incorporation and the memorandum. (3) If a company makes default in complying with any direction given under sub-section (1), the company shall be punishable with fine of one thousand rupees for every day during which the default 33 continues and every officer who is in default shall be punishable with fine which shall not be less than five thousand rupees but which may extend to one lakh rupees.
15. The petitioner has filed the applications before the second respondent under Section 16 (1) (a) of the Companies Act, 2013 seeking for rectification of the name of the respective third respondent Company alleging 17/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.52 of 2022 and 5330, 5325 and 5327 of 2020 that the name adopted by the third respondent is identical similar to the name of the applicant. The applications under Section 16 (1) (a) of the Companies Act, 2013 were filed by the petitioner against the respective third respondent company before the second respondent on various dates viz., 05.09.2016, 11.05.2017, 12.05.2017 & 11.05.2017 respectively, though the respective third respondents were incorporated under the provisions of the old Companies Act, 1956, long time back in the years 2000, 2007, 2000 and 2000 respectively.
16. The intention of the legislature would never have been to enable Companies without any time line to seek for rectification of another Company's name. If that was the intention of the legislature, instead of achieving the ends of justice, it will end up in encouraging unconscionable claims causing unjust harassment.
17. Whenever there is no limitation period fixed under any provision of a particular statute, the authority is required to initiate the said proceedings within a reasonable period. In Mohamad Kavi Mohamad Amin vs. Fatmabai Ibrahim reported in (1997) 6 SCC 7, suo motu proceedings were 18/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.52 of 2022 and 5330, 5325 and 5327 of 2020 initiated in September 1976 by the Mamlatdar questioning the validity of the sale deed executed in December 1972. In the said case, the Hon'ble supreme Court after noticing the earlier decisions on the issue observed thus :
“ Where no time limit is prescribed for exercise of a power under a statute, it does not mean that it can be exercised at any time; such power has to be exercised within a reasonable time. We are satisfied that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the suo motu power under section 84-c of the Act was not exercised by the Mamlatdar within a reasonable time.” The aforesaid decision was also followed in the recent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and another vs. Citi Bank N.A in Civil Appeal No.9337 of 2010 dated 24.08.2022.
18. The power to direct rectification under section 16(1)(a) is exclusively vested with the Central Government and is a suo motu power. Even if the Central Government decides to initiate suo motu proceedings under section 16(1)(a) now, the said proceedings will be hopelessly barred by limitation as the said power would have been exercised not within a reasonable time. Just because, there is no limitation prescribed under section 16(1)(a), it cannot be construed that there is no time limit. Under section 19/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.52 of 2022 and 5330, 5325 and 5327 of 2020 22(1) of the old Companies Act, 1956 twelve months period was fixed for the exercise of suo motu action and therefore, it can be conclusively held that even under section 16(1)(a) of the new Companies Act, 2013 suo motu power will have to be exercised by the Central Government within a reasonable time. The respective third respondent Company having been incorporated long time back much prior to the coming into force of the new Companies Act, 2013, the question of the Central Government initiating its suo motu power under section 16(1)(a) of the Companies Act, 2013 at this stage will not arise and will be barred by limitation. This Court is therefore, of the considered view that the second respondent has rightly rejected the applications filed by the petitioner on the ground of limitation.
19. Section 16 of the Companies Act, 2013 comprises of two parts. The first part viz., Section 16 (1) (a) gives the Central Government, the Suo- motu power to direct the Company to change its name based on its findings that the name of the said Company is identical with or too nearly resembles the name by which the Company in existence had been previously registered. The second part is on an application submitted by a registered proprietor of a trade mark alleging that the name of the other Company is identical with or 20/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.52 of 2022 and 5330, 5325 and 5327 of 2020 too nearly resembles a registered trade mark of such proprietor under the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
20. The petitioner contends in these Writ Petitions that even on an application, the second respondent can exercise its power under Section 16 (1) (a) of the Companies Act, 2013 which in the considered view of this Court is incorrect. The reason being is that under Section 16 (1) (a) of the Companies Act, 2013, it begins with the phrase "in the opinion of the Central Government" which is distinct from section 16(1)(b) which power is exercised only on an application by the Registered Proprietor of a Trade Mark. Therefore, Section 16(1)(a) of the Act is a Suo-motu power vested exclusively by the Central Government. When the Registered Proprietor of a Trade Mark is empowered to exercise its right seeking for rectification under section 16(1)(b), the intention of the legislature would never have been to grant them dual rights under the very same section of either exercising right under section 16(1)(a) or under section 16(1)(b). The conjunction “or” is also deliberately omitted between section 16(1)(a) and 16(1)(b) to make the distinction which makes it clear that the intention of the legislature was not to grant right to a registered Proprietor of a trade mark to exercise its rights for 21/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.52 of 2022 and 5330, 5325 and 5327 of 2020 rectification of the name both under section 16(1)(a) and section 16(1)(b) of the Companies Act, 2013. The power under section 16(1)(a) is exclusively vested with the Central Government and is a suo motu power. However, the said suo-motu power can be exercised by the Central Government only after its objective satisfaction. The applications filed by the petitioner under section 16(1)(a) before the second respondent being not maintainable, the second respondent has rightly rejected the applications. Earlier instances of the second respondent entertaining such applications on behalf of the petitioner cannot be a ground for this Court to accept the contention of the petitioner that the applications filed by the petitioner under section 16(1)(a) of the Act is maintainable. Further the precedents of the second respondent's orders under section 16(1)(a) are not binding on this Court and also does not have any persuasive value as the said precedents are not in accordance with law and not rendered by constitutional courts. Erroneous orders passed earlier by the second respondent under Section 16 (1) (a) of the Companies Act, 2013 which have been placed on record before this Court as precedents by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not in accordance with the statute viz., Section 16 (1) (a) of the Companies Act, 2013 and therefore, even by way of persuasion, the said erroneous orders cannot be considered by this Court and 22/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.52 of 2022 and 5330, 5325 and 5327 of 2020 has to be rejected outright. None of the decisions of the High Courts relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner dealt with the maintainability of an application under section 16(1)(a) of the Act and therefore, they have no bearing to the facts of the instant case.
21. The petitioner having failed in its attempt to get an order of injunction before the Delhi High Court, pending disposal of the trade mark suit against the third respondent has filed the applications under Section 16 (1) (a) of the Companies Act, 2013. The respective third respondent will be put to irreparable loss, if the applications under section 16 of the Act is entertained that too, when the petitioner has failed in its attempt to get an order of injunction before the Delhi High Court to restrain the respective third respondent company to use the name by establishing prima facie case, balance of convenience and by proving irreparable hardship. The second respondent is certainly bound by the findings and decision of the Delhi High Court and therefore, has rightly rejected the applications under the impugned orders on the ground of res-judicata.
22. The petitioner has challenged the impugned orders all dated 23/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.52 of 2022 and 5330, 5325 and 5327 of 2020 22.02.2018 only in the year 2020 and 2022. W.P.Nos.5330, 5325 & 5327 have been filed in the year 2020 and W.P.No.52 has been filed in the year 2022. Therefore, even on the ground of laches, these writ petitions cannot be entertained by this Court.
23. For the foregoing reasons, there is no merit in these writ petitions and they are dismissed. No costs.
25.08.2022
nl/ab
Index : Yes/No
Speaking Order : Yes / No
24/26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.52 of 2022 and 5330, 5325 and 5327 of 2020 To
1.Union of India, Throught its Secretary, Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Govt. of India, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi.
2.Regional Director, Office of the Regional Director, (Southern Region), Ministry of Corporate Affairs, 5th Floor, Shastri Bhawan, 27 Haddows Road, Chennai - 600 006.
25/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.52 of 2022 and 5330, 5325 and 5327 of 2020 ABDUL QUDDHOSE. J, nl Predelivery order in W.P.Nos.52 of 2022 and 5330, 5325 and 5327 of 2020 25.08.2022 26/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis