JUDGMENT S. M. Jhunjhunwala, J. - This is a motion in a passing off action. The plaintiff seeks to restrain the defendant from using, offering for sale and/or exposing for sale any goods bearing the words "Garha" and/or "Garha Gears" or colourable imitation thereof or any deceptively similar words without the licence and/or consent of the plaintiff and also from passing off its goods as those of the plaintiff by the use of words "Garha", "Garha Gears" and/or any other similar words in its corporate name. 2. Both the plaintiff and the defendant are public limited companies duly incorporated and registered under the provisions of The Companies Act, 1956. The plaintiff is a manufacturer of Automobile, Diesel Engine, Tractor and Industrial Gears and other allied goods. 3. Briefly stated, the plaintiff's case is as under: (i) The plaintiff is the registered proprietor and owner of the Trade Mark "Gajra" as well as the logo "GG" uses in respect of its manufactured goods and products including Rear Axle Assembly, Camshafts and Transmission Gears. (ii) The plaintiff has acquired large reputation and goodwill in the market and due to the high quality in the manufacture, sales and marketing of its products, the plaintiff's business has increased substantially over the years. (iii) The plaintiff been exporting its goods to various countries and the plaintiff has spent large amounts on advertisements and publicity compaign. (iv) The plaintiff's goods have become very popular in the market and have acquired distinctiveness and have come to be associated in the minds of traders and members of the public as being exclusively those of the the plaintiff and are marketed and sold as "Gajra Gears" and traded by the plaintiff in part of its corporate name. (v) The corporate name of the plaintiff has acquired large reputations and the same has become known to the public at large. (vi) The Defendant Company, which was incorporated on 19th December, 1990, is also carrying on the same and/or similar business as that of the plaintiff, i.e., manufacture of transmission gears and selling the same under a part of its corporate name and the word "Garha" appears in the same way and in the similar manner as that of the plaintiff. (vii) The adoption by the defendant Company of its corporate name is dishonest and has been done with a mala fide and fraudulent intention. (vii) The adoption by the defendant Company of its corporate name is dishonest and has been done with a mala fide and fraudulent intention. (viii) That the adoption by the defendant of its corporate name is a colourable imitation as that of the plaintiff's corporate name and has been so adopted to pass off the defendant's goods as those of the plaintiff and thereby deceive the public. 4. The defendant's case is as under: (i) The defendant Company has just been incorporated, it has not yet commenced its production and as such the application of the plaintiff is prematured. (ii) The Registrar of Companies, Gwalior and Gajra Bevel Gears Limited being necessary parties, have not been joined as parties to the suit and as such, the suit as well as the Notice of Motion are liable to be dismissed. (iii) That the defendant Company has been promoted by the Garha Family as well as the family members of Gajra Family of which I.S. Gajra is the head. (iv) That GARHA is the name of a village bear Guna, about 265 kms. from Indore. It was the capital of Garha and Jamner Estate which was a jagir in the Kingdom of the Scindias prior to partition and the rulers of this jagir were conferred the title of The Raja of Garha by the Britishers, Surendra Singh Garha, a Director of the defendant Company is a scion of this family who commenced his foray into business under the name "Garha" and since the year 1978, has promoted several business ventures individually or alongwith other members of his family with the word "GARHA" forming part of corporate name. (v) That a Deed of Settlement was executed on 11th September, 1990 and under Clause 18 thereof, Gajra Bevel Gears Ltd., has been given specific right to market Rear Axle Assemblies and parts thereof and camshafts with the Trade Mark GAJRA and/or Logo 'GG'. By reason of the said Deed of Settlement, the plaintiff is not entitled to use the said Trade Mark GAJRA and/or Logo GG in respect of the said goods. By reason of the said Deed of Settlement, the plaintiff is not entitled to use the said Trade Mark GAJRA and/or Logo GG in respect of the said goods. In the said suit filed by the said Gajra Bevel Gears Ltd. against the plaintiff in this court, ad inter-interim injunction has been granted restraining the plaintiff herein from manufacturing and/or marketing Rear Axle Assemblies and part thereof and camshafts under the said Trade Mark GAJRA and/or Logo GG embossed thereon and/or may other manner whatsoever and/or other deceptively similar Trade Mark. Since despite the Order of injunction granted by this Court, the plaintiff has continued to manufacture and/or market Rear Axle Assemblies and Camshafts under the said Trade Mark GAJRA and/or Logo GG embossed thereon, the said Gajra Bevel Gears Ltd. has taken out a Contempt Notice of Motion against the plaintiff herein which is pending. Instead of purging the contempt, the plaintiff has filed this Suit against the defendant as a counter blast to the said suit to pressurise the defendant to submit to the terms of the plaintiff herein. (vi) That use of a part of its corporate name viz., "Garha Gears" by the defendant is not fraudulent or mala fide and has not caused and is not causing confusion or deception to the public. According to the defendant the same or similar or identical business is not carried on by the defendant with a view to trade upon the reputation and/or goodwill of the plaintiff or with a view to pass off the defendant's goods as those of the plaintiff by use of a part of its corporate name, i.e. "Garha Gears". (vii) That the defendant had applied to the Appropriate Authority under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 its incorporation with the present corporate name and the defendant company being duly incorporated and registered, is legally and bona fide entitled to use its corporate name and the plaintiff in not entitled to any relief against the defendant. In the suit, the word "GARHA" does not appear in the same way or similar manner as the word "GAJRA". 5. Mr. In the suit, the word "GARHA" does not appear in the same way or similar manner as the word "GAJRA". 5. Mr. Chagla, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff, has submitted that though everybody has right to use his to name so far he does not pass his goods as those of others since the defendant has adopted words "Garha Gears" as part of its corporate name dishonestly and mala fide with intention to pass off its goods as that of the plaintiff, the plaintiff is entitled to Order of injunction as prayed for. He has further submitted that adoption by the defendant of its corporate name is colourable imitation as that of the plaintiff's corporate name and defendant is advertising and issuing press releases in its corporate name so as to deceive the public and pass off its goods as those of the plaintiff. In support of his submissions, Mr. Chagla has put reliance on press releases and reports in financial newspapers and magazines including the Dalal Street Investment Journal published from Bombay. Price List issued by Mahamaya Agencies and invoice dated 17 December, 1991 issued by Sethi Motor Corporation, Bombay, Mr. Chagla has also relied upon the case of (Computervision Corporation v. Computer Vision Limited (1975) RPC 171 (Distinguished). 6. Mr. Mehta, the learned Counsel appearing for the defendant has submitted that since no suit has been filed by the plaintiff against Gajra Bevel Gears Ltd., the suit as against the defendant is not maintainable. Mr. Mehta has further submitted that the suit filed by the plaintiff is not an action on alleged infringement of plaintiff's registered Trade Mark. It is an action in alleged passing off by the defendant by having the words "Garha Gears" as part of its corporate name. Mr. Mehta has further submitted that "Gajra" is family name and under clause 18 of the said Deed of Settlement Gajra Bevel Gears Ltd. has been specifically permitted to use the said Trade Mark A GJRA and Logo GG registered in the name of the plaintiff for the products manufactured by the said Gajra Bevel Gears Ltd. in its factory viz. Mehta has further submitted that "Gajra" is family name and under clause 18 of the said Deed of Settlement Gajra Bevel Gears Ltd. has been specifically permitted to use the said Trade Mark A GJRA and Logo GG registered in the name of the plaintiff for the products manufactured by the said Gajra Bevel Gears Ltd. in its factory viz. all Rear Axle Assemblies and part thereof and Camshafts and as such the said Gajra Bevel Gears Ltd. is entitle to use the said Trade Mark & Logo on Rear Axle Assemblies and parts thereof and Camshafts and since the defendant is not embossing the said Trade Mark or Logo on the said products, the question of an order of injunction being passed against the defendant, in the facts and circumstances of the case, does not arise. Mr. Mehta has further submitted that besides being the name of village, "Garha" is also a family name and adoption of name "GARHA" by Surendra Singh Garha a Director of the defendant had commenced in the year 1978 and various companies having corporate name "GARHA" were incorporated and registered, the details whereof have been given in para 3(vi) of the affidavit of the said Surendra Singh Garha filed in reply to the Notice of Motion and as such, the Defendant Company has not been incorporated to take any advantage of the business carried in plaintiff's name. In the circumstances, in the submission of Mr. Mehta, the defendant cannot be prevented to float a company having words "Garha Gear" as part of its corporate name. Mr. Mehta has further submitted that use of a part of its corporate name viz., "Garha Gears" has neither caused nor is causing any confusion nor is mala fide of deceiving the public at large. Mr. Mehta has further submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the case of Computervision Corporation (supra) relied upon by Mr. Chagla has no application and since no prima facie case of passing off has been made out, the Notice of Motion is liable to be dismissed with costs. 7. Messrs. Ramesh Bhaisham Gajra-Indur Shantiswaroop Gajra and Surendra Singh Garha are related to each other. The said Ramesh Bhaisham Gajra is the Chairman and Managing Director of the plaintiff. The said Indur Shantiswaroop Gajra and the said Surendra Singh Garha respectively are uncle and brother-in-law of the said Ramesh Gajra. 7. Messrs. Ramesh Bhaisham Gajra-Indur Shantiswaroop Gajra and Surendra Singh Garha are related to each other. The said Ramesh Bhaisham Gajra is the Chairman and Managing Director of the plaintiff. The said Indur Shantiswaroop Gajra and the said Surendra Singh Garha respectively are uncle and brother-in-law of the said Ramesh Gajra. They have together been carrying on business. On 11th September, 1990 there was a partition in the family of the business as per Deed of Settlement executed on 11th September, 1990 amongst the members of the family. By clause 18 of the said Deed of Settlement, Gajra Bevel Gears Ltd. was given specific right to market Rear Axle Assemblies and parts thereof and Camshafts with the Trade Mark GAJRA and/or Logo GG embossed thereon. By reason of agreement amongst the parties as recorded in the said Clause 18, the plaintiff has no right to use the said Trade Mark and/or Logo in respect of these goods. In the circumstances, the plaintiff cannot make any grievance by user of the said Trade Mark and Logo by the said Gajra Bevel Gears Ltd. in respect of the goods. The defendant has not started manufacturing any goods and as such, the question of defendant using the said Trade Mark and/or Lago or passing off its goods as those of the plaintiff does not arise. 8. The said Surendra Singh Garha, ascion of the family of the The Raja of Garha commenced his foray into business under the name of "GARHA" and since the year 1978, promoted and/or floated various companies with word "GARHA" forming part of corporate name along with other members of the family. The Defendant Company has been promoted by the Garha family as well as the members Grjra family of which the said Indur Gajra is the head. Merely because the word "GARHA" is part of the corporate name of the defendant along with the descriptive word "Gear" it cannot be said that the adoption of the words "Garha Gears" in the corporate name of the defendant is with any dishonest intention or is fraudulent or mala fide or intended to confuse or deceive the public. 9. In the Dalal Street Investment Journal dated 25th August, 1991, an article/press report under the title "Gajra Bevel Geared for Success" has been published. 9. In the Dalal Street Investment Journal dated 25th August, 1991, an article/press report under the title "Gajra Bevel Geared for Success" has been published. This pertains to group of companies headed by the said Indur Gajra, who claims to be known as the father of the Indian Automotive Gear Industry. It states, Gajra Bevel Gears will begin manufacturing transmission gears in the second quarter of the next year. For this diversification a new company, Gajra Gears Limited has been incorporate. The total cost of this project is estimated to be Rs. 25 crores Institutional loans will provide Rs. 15 crores the promoters Rs. 4 crores and the balance by way of public issue in Sept., 1991". Since the name of new company has been mentioned a Gajra Gears Ltd. it is submitted on behalf of the plaintiff that confusion is created in view of the name of defendant being similar to that of the plaintiff and the defendant is attempting to pass off its goods as those of the plaintiff. The explanation given on behalf of the defendant in this regard is more cogent and convincing. As stated by the defendant in the affidavit of the said Surendra Singh Garha, it appears that certain newsmen from prominent papers like The Financial Express. The Bombay Samachar, The Janmabhoomi, The Business and Political Observer, The Daily, The Vyapar and others were briefed by the said Indur Gajra, the Managing Director of the said Gajra Bevel Gears Ltd. and he had given the future projects and plans of this Group of Companies. The interview of the said Indur Gajra was correctly reported in almost all those papers except some printing mistakes here and there whereby the name of "Gajra Gears Limited" has appeared as new Company in place and stead of the defendant. This mistake is well established by reporting made by The Financial Express dated 14th August, 1991 wherein the name of the new Company has been mentioned as "Garha Gears". 10. There is no merit in the submission made on behalf of the plaintiff to the effect that by reason of the name of the defendant, confusion has been created with the postal authorities in as much as, correspondence addressed to the defendant is being delivered to the plaintiff although addresses of both these companies are totally different. 10. There is no merit in the submission made on behalf of the plaintiff to the effect that by reason of the name of the defendant, confusion has been created with the postal authorities in as much as, correspondence addressed to the defendant is being delivered to the plaintiff although addresses of both these companies are totally different. The plaintiff has relied upon two instances with intent to make a mountain of a mole hill. In view of division of Group of Companies between two groups, it is possible that the fact of such division was not fully made known to the postal authorities and as such, the said two letters though addressed to the defendant, were wrongly taken delivery of by the plaintiff at the present address prior to such division, otherwise there was no possibility of any postman delivering the letter addressed to the defendant to the plaintiff, the two addresses being distinct and the distance between the two being more than 10 Kms. Normally, the postman effect, deliveries as per addresses and not by names of the addressees. The possibility of delivery of these two ordinary letters being obtained by the plaintiff for the purpose of this suit can also be not ruled out. 11. In support of its case that the Defendant Company has started manufacturing it products, the plaintiff has relied upon some cartons produced before me for my persual. On the top of the said cartons it is stated as under: "A product of Gajra Bevel Group of Company". On a side, it is stated as under: "Garha Gears Ltd." Since the name of the defendant has been mentioned, it is submitted on behalf of the plaintiff that the defendant has commenced production and is effecting sales of its goods as those of the plaintiff. There is no merit also in this submission made on behalf of the plaintiff. On a side, it is stated as under: "Garha Gears Ltd." Since the name of the defendant has been mentioned, it is submitted on behalf of the plaintiff that the defendant has commenced production and is effecting sales of its goods as those of the plaintiff. There is no merit also in this submission made on behalf of the plaintiff. As aforesaid, under Clause 18 of the said Deed of Settlement, the said Gajra Bevel Gears Ltd. has been specifically authorised to use the said Trade Mark "Gajra" and Logo "GG" in respect of Rear Axle Assemblies and parts thereof and Camshafts manufactured in the factory of the said Gajra Bevel Gears Ltd. The said cartons in terms state that the contents therein are the products of Gajra Bevel Group of Company i.e., the said Gajra Bevel Gears Ltd. The defendant is not prevented to effect sales of products of the said Gajra Bevel Gears Ltd. Merely because on a side of the said cartons the name of the defendant appears, it cannot be assumed that the defendant has commenced production more particularly in view of the fact that even the commencement of business certificate has not be issued to the defendants. 12. Reliance on behalf of the plaintiff has also been placed on price list in respect of Garha Gears effective from 15th August, 1991 issued by Mahamaya Agencies as also invoice dated 17th December, 1991 issued by Sethi Motor Corporation, Bombay, to show that the defendant has commenced production of the said goods and that the defendant is selling its goods as those of the plaintiff. The said Mahamaya Agencies have not been appointed as stockists or agents of the defendant. The price list relied upon by the plaintiff is neither issued by the defendant nor is on the letter head of the defendant. The caption of the said price list describes the Gears as "A products of GBGL", i.e., the said Gajra Bevel Gears Ltd. This by itself prima facie proves that the said price list is not in respect of gears to be manufactured by the defendant. Since the defendant has not started its manufacturing activities, the question of plaintiff purchasing 4th Speed Transmission Gears of defendant's manufacture from the said Sethi Motor Corporation did not arise. Since the defendant has not started its manufacturing activities, the question of plaintiff purchasing 4th Speed Transmission Gears of defendant's manufacture from the said Sethi Motor Corporation did not arise. The carton of the said goods shows that the said goods are manufactured by the said Gajra Bevel Gears Ltd. and not by the defendant. When the said goods were manufactured by the said Gajra Bevel Gears Ltd. the question of the defendant putting its logo mark thereon did not arise. Even the cash memo relied upon by the plaintiff does not show as to who had purchased the goods mentioned therein and what product or goods have been sold thereunder. 13. The case of Computervision Corporation (supra) has been a case of passing off action by manufacturer of sophisticated electronic equipment against manufacture of supermarket checkout equipment. The plaintiff's corporate title was COMPUTER VISION CORPORATION" and some of its products bore a trade mark "COMPUTER VISION". The defendants' corporate title was "COMPUTER VISION LIMITED" and they intended as sell products under that name. The section was quia time. In that case, the question arose as to whether the defendant's trade name was sufficiently differentiated from the plaintiffs'. The defendants drew distinction by stating that the plaintiffs' name is one word "Computer Vision" while the defendants' is two, "Computer Vision. On the facts of that case, it was held that there might be a visible difference but that there was no difference to the car, and as such, no real distinction. However, in the instant case, the word "Gajra" forming part of the corporate name of the plaintiff and the word "Garha" forming part of corporate name of the defendant are sufficiently different to avoid confusion and the defendant's trade name has been sufficiently differentiated from the plaintiff's. Hence, the said judgment relied upon by the plaintiff has no application to the facts and circumstances of the present case. 14. The defendant has not started its manufacturing activities and hence the question of the defendant passing off its goods as those of the plaintiff does not arise. The action of the plaintiff in instituting the suit against the defendant for the reliefs claimed against the, defendant prima facie appears to be by way of counter blast to the suit filed by the said Gajra Bevel Gears Ltd. against the plaintiff. The action of the plaintiff in instituting the suit against the defendant for the reliefs claimed against the, defendant prima facie appears to be by way of counter blast to the suit filed by the said Gajra Bevel Gears Ltd. against the plaintiff. Everybody has right to use one's own names as part of its trade name, subject, however to availability thereof under the relevant provisions of law, so long as one does not pass off one's own goods as that of the other. The word "Garha" being distinct and different from the word "Gajra", numerous companies with the word "Garha" forming part of their corporate names have since the year 1978 come into existence and no confusion has so far been created amongst the public at large. Even appearance of the word "Gajra" forming part of corporate name of the plaintiff and that of the word "Garha" forming part of corporate name of the defendant is neither similar not identical. In the result, the Notice of Motion is dismissed with no order as to costs. Motion dismissed.