In a recent ruling by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, the interpretation of
Section 12 of the Companies Act, 2013, regarding the display of old company
names came under scrutiny in a case where the court had directed a defendant to
change its name. This article provides a detailed analysis of the legal
implications of the court's clarification and its impact on mandatory name
change cases.
Background:
The case in question involved a directive from the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi
for the defendant to change its corporate name. In compliance with the court's
direction, the defendant applied to the Registrar of Companies for a change of
name. However, confusion arose regarding the applicability of Section 12 of the
Companies Act, 2013, which mandates the display of old company names for a
period of two years in cases of voluntary name changes.
Interpretation of Section 12 of the Companies Act, 2013:
Section 12 of the Companies Act, 2013, stipulates that when a company
voluntarily changes its name, it must continue to display its old name along
with its new name for a period of two years from the date of change. The
objective behind this provision is to ensure transparency and inform
stakeholders about the transition to a new corporate identity.
Clarification by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi:
In the case before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, the defendant argued that it
was required to comply with the provisions of Section 12 despite the name change
being mandated by the court. However, the court clarified that Section 12
applies specifically to cases of voluntary name changes initiated by the company
itself. In instances where the court directs a company to change its name as
part of a judicial order, the provisions of Section 12 do not apply.
Conclusion:
The interpretation of Section 12 of the Companies Act, 2013, by the Hon'ble High
Court of Delhi in mandatory name change cases underscores the nuanced approach
required in legal proceedings involving corporate governance matters. By
providing clarity on the applicability of statutory provisions, courts play a
pivotal role in ensuring compliance with the law while balancing the practical
realities faced by businesses.
Case Title: Sanofi and another Vs Zanofi Pharmaceutical Pvt. Ltd.
Order Date: 23.02.2024
Case No. CS Comm 881 of 2023
Neutral Citation:N.A.
Name of Court: Delhi High Court
Name of Hon'ble Judge: Anish Dayal, H.J.
Disclaimer:
Ideas, thoughts, views, information, discussions and interpretation expressed
herein are being shared in the public Interest. Readers' discretion is advised
as these are subject to my subjectivity and may contain human errors in
perception, interpretation and presentation of the fact and issue involved
herein.
Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor - Patent and
Trademark Attorney
Email:
[email protected], Ph no: 9990389539
Please Drop Your Comments