Single judges dismissal of appellant's writ regarding cancellation of entity name 'APAAR' upheld. Court held no infirmity in refusal as term implies publici juris. Appeal dismissed.
The appellant's appeal is dismissed; the impugned order of the learned Single Judge stands confirmed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~25 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
APAR INDUSTRIES LTD ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Manav Kumar with Mr. Sheikh F. Kalia, Advs.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Kirtiman Singh, CGSC with Mr. Prateek Dhanda, Advs. for R-1 and 3.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA
O R D E R % 02.04.2018
The appellant‟s grievance is with respect to the dismissal of its writ petition which had questioned the use of the expression “APAAR”. The name of the fourth respondent‟s entity is „APAAR Infratech Private Limited‟. The appellant is carrying on business as „APAR Industries Ltd.‟ since 1973, when it was incorporated.
After considering the submissions of the parties including the Registrar of Companies who had declined to grant relief to the appellant, the learned Single Judge considered the arguments and other materials such as the list of 61 companies, the names of which included “APAAR” and held that the rejection of the LPA 163/2018 Page 1 of 2
appellant‟s request for cancellation under Section 22 of the Companies Act, 1956 did not call for interference.
Learned counsel relied upon the materials produced before the Single Judge and urged that the appellant is owner of the registered trade mark “APAR” in Classes 5 and 9 of the Second Schedule to the Trade Marks Act, 1999. This Court notices that this aspect too was examined by the learned Single Judge who weighed the balance of convenience and was of the opinion that having regard to the fact that “APAR” or “APAAR” meant the same in Hindi i.e. boundless or limitless which implied an element of publici juris, relief was not warranted.
This Court is of the opinion that there is no infirmity in the impugned order. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J
A. K. CHAWLA, J
APRIL 02, 2018 kks
LPA 163/2018
Page 2 of 2
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the learned Single Judge's rejection of the appellant's request for cancellation under Section 22 of the Companies Act, 1956 calling for interference when the term 'APAAR' is of publici juris.
Whether the use of the expression 'APAAR' infringes upon the appellant's registered trade mark 'APAR' given they share the same meaning in Hindi.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
APAR INDUSTRIES LTD
UNION OF INDIA & ORS
S. RAVINDRA BHAT
A. K. CHAWLA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
