M. S. A. Siddiqui, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 16. 6. 1995passed by the Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks, whereby he allowed the interlocutory application dated 6. 3. 1995 filed by the respondent for withdrawal/cancellation of the notification published in the Trade Marks General No. 1074 dated1. 3. 1994 with regard to the registered Trade Mark No. 285245 in the names of Gopalsingh and Avtar Singh, trading as M/s. Akal Mechanical Works, Ludhiana and formaintenance of statue quo till disposal of the rectification proceedings. ( 2 ) BRIEF facts giving rise to this appeal are that Gopal Singh (one of the partnersof the appellant-firm) and Gurcharan Singh (one of the partners of the respondentfirm) were joint proprietors of the registered Trade Mark No. 2825 ("paras Special")trading as M/s. Akal Mechanical Works, Ludhiana. On 7. 8. 1992, the respondentfiled an application for rectification which was resisted by the appellants. On13. 5. 1993, the appellant presented an application on form TM 24 before the Registrarfor removal of the name of the respondent No. 2 for the certificate of registrationas one of the proprietors of the disputed trade mark. This application was allowedand name of the appellant No. 2 was removed from the certificate of registrationwithout any notice to him. Thereafter, the respondent No. 2 filed an applicationbefore the Registrar contending that the order of removal of his name from theregister as one of the joint proprietors of the trade mark was obtained on the basisof a forged document with the object of depriving him of his rights in the trade markand that the order was made by the Registrar without any notice or information tohim and was therefore illegal and void. By the impugned order, the deputy Registrarcancelled the order of removal of the respondent No. 2 s name from the certificateof registration and ordered for maintenance of status quo till the decision of therectification proceedings. Aggrieved by this order, the appellant has come up inappeal before this Court. ( 3 ) IT is beyond the pale of controversy that the respondent No. 2 was one of theproprietors of the disputed registered trade mark and the order of removal of hisname from the certificate was made without any notice or information to him. Aggrieved by this order, the appellant has come up inappeal before this Court. ( 3 ) IT is beyond the pale of controversy that the respondent No. 2 was one of theproprietors of the disputed registered trade mark and the order of removal of hisname from the certificate was made without any notice or information to him. Learned Counsel for the appellant contends that it was not obligatory on the partof the Registrar to issue notice to the respondent No. 2 before making an order onthe application presented by the appellant on Form TM ( 24 ) HE also submits that therules framed under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act (for short the act ) havedelberately made no provision of notice on such applications. In my opinion, thepoint raised by the learned Counsel is no longer res integra as it has been held bythis Court in R. Kishan v. Assistant Registrar Trade Marks, AIR 1969 Delhi 324 that itis implicit in the Rules framed under the Act that when an application of assignmentor transmission is made by some persons in respect of a trade mark in which thenames of certain other persons are shown as registered proprietors, before anyaction is taken on that application, the persons whose names are already on theregister must have notice of that application. It has to be borne in mind that thealteration in the certificate of registration was not merely in the nature of correctionof a typographical error or mistake in the recording of entry. The alteration consistsin removing the name of respondent No. 2 from the certificate of registration as oneof the proprietors of the trade mark and, therefore, seriously affects the proprietoryrights of the respondent No. 2. An order involving such serious consequences couldnot be passed without complying with the elementary requirements of rules ofnatural justice. It is well settled that an order made without regard to the principlesof natural justice is void. Since the order of removal of the name the respondent No. 2 from the certificate of registration was made in contravention of the principles ofnatural justice, the Deputy Registrar has not committed any illegality in withdrawing the said order, which was void and illegal. In my considered opinion, theimpugned order, does not suffer from any legal infirmity warranting an interference from this Court. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.