Judgment :- By consent the main writ petition is taken up for disposal. The prayer in the writ petition is to issue of writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the certificate of incorporation dated 24.10.2008 issued by the third respondent for registration of Accura Electrodes India Private Limited Company, with address at 33, Nehru Street, Thottapalayam Road, Chinniampalayam Post, Coimbatore-641 062, and to direct the second respondent to forward to the first respondent for passing orders on the application under Section 22 of the Companies Act dated 29.08.2008. 2. Facts:- M/s.Accura Weldrods, hereinafter referred to as the firm, was a registered partnership firm, which came into being pursuant to a deed of partnership dated 10.04.2000 and the respondents 4 and 5 were its partners. The firm was reconstituted by a deed dated 14.05.2003, by which the petitioner was admitted as one of the partners and the fifth respondent retired from the partnership firm. Pursuant to a deed of retirement dated 22.06.2008, the fourth respondent retired from the firm and the partnership was reconstituted by a deed of reconstitution dated 22.06.2008, consisting of the petitioner and his wife Tmt. G.Karpagam as partners. A Memorandum of agreement for noncompete and usage of trade mark registration was entered into between the petitioner and his wife as parties of the first part, the partnership firm as party of the second part and the fourth respondent as party of the third part. A deed of assignment dated 04.07.2008 was executed by the fourth respondent in favour of the petitioner and his wife, trading as a registered partnership firm. The dispute which has resulted in this writ petition appears to have commenced, when the fourth and fifth respondents incorporated the company under the name and style of Accura Weldrods India Private Limited for which the certificate of incorporation was issued by the third respondent on 21.07.2008. The Directors of the said company were the fourth and fifth respondents. It is seen that the petitioner herein and his wife submitted an application before the Registrar of Trademarks on 31.07.2008 for registering the mark Accura Weldrods, claiming user since 12.07.2000. This application is stated to be pending. The Directors of the said company were the fourth and fifth respondents. It is seen that the petitioner herein and his wife submitted an application before the Registrar of Trademarks on 31.07.2008 for registering the mark Accura Weldrods, claiming user since 12.07.2000. This application is stated to be pending. It is the further case of the petitioner that during August 2008, he came to know that the respondents 4 & 5 have incorporated a company under the name and style Accura Weldrods India Private Limited and on coming to the know on the same the partnership firm represented by the petitioner as Managing Partner caused a legal notice dated 29.08.2008 to the second respondent with copies marked to the third respondent and Accura Weldrods, Coimbatore. In the legal notice, the petitioner by relying upon the various documents executed by the fourth respondent stated that the name of the company, which was incorporated as Accura Weldrods India Private Limited, resembles the name of the firm and that the fourth respondent has no right to start a company under the said name as he has relinquished his rights and that he has suppressed the fact before he incorporated the company. The petitioner also stated about his application before the trademark Registry for registering the name "Accura Weldrods". (Though, in the legal notice, it was claimed that it is a registered mark, the learned counsel for the petitioner would fairly submit that only an application had been presented and the same was pending with the trademark registry). Based on the above statements, the petitioner called upon the second respondent to change the name of the company M/s.Accura Weldrods India Private Limited. Along with the legal notice, copies of 12 documents were enclosed in the support of his petitioners claim. This legal notice was received by the second respondent on 12.09.2008 as seen from the postal acknowledgment card. Based on the above statements, the petitioner called upon the second respondent to change the name of the company M/s.Accura Weldrods India Private Limited. Along with the legal notice, copies of 12 documents were enclosed in the support of his petitioners claim. This legal notice was received by the second respondent on 12.09.2008 as seen from the postal acknowledgment card. Thereafter, the fourth respondent by letter dated 24.09.2008 addressed to the third respondent stated that he is the one of the Directors of Accura Weldrods India Private Limited and he was one of the partner of the firm and the name M/s.Accura Weldrods has been registered under the Trade Marks Act and name of Accura Fine Fusions is also registered and he has retired from the partnership M/s.Accura Weldrods and still is one of the partner of M/s.Accura Fine Fusions, hence, he decided to change the name of the company from Accura Weldrods India Private Limited into Accura Electrods India Limited. A Special resolution is said to have been passed by the company on 13.10.2008. Thereafter, the fourth respondent in the capacity of Managing Director of Accura Weldrods India Private Limited appears to have addressed a letter to the third respondent stating that they have received a notice from the petitioner, who was the erstwhile partner of the fourth respondent in a firm called Accura Weldrods and that the fourth respondent has relinquished all his right and entitlements to the continuing partners and for better understanding and to avoid legal proceedings, they have unanimously decided to change the name as Accura Electrods India Private Limited enclosing the special resolution dated 13.10.2008. It is thereafter, the impugned certificate of incorporation consequent upon the change of name came to be issued by the third respondent on 24.10.2008. 3. This Court by order dated 09.01.2009, while ordering notice of motion to the respondents returnable in eight weeks granted interim stay for a limited period, which came to be extended, by orders dated 23.04.2009 and 10.06.2009, this Court by order dated 20.08.2009 dismissed the writ petition holding that the company is a necessary party to the writ petition and without hearing the company no grounds raised by the petitioner can be decided and on this sole ground in the writ petition was dismissed. The petitioner filed W.A.No.1513/2009 and the Honble First Bench of this Court by order dated 12.11.2009, restored the writ petition to the file of this Court and held that the petitioner will move necessary application for impleading the two companies as well as application for reviving the interim order. It is pursuant to the direction issued by the Honble Division Bench, the matter is before this Court. 4. Before proceedings to deal with the contentions raised by the parties, it is necessary to consider the petition in M.P.Nos.1&2/2010 filed for impleading M/s.Accura Weldrods India Private Limited and M/s.Accura Electrods India Private Limited as respondents 6 and 7 in the above writ petition. M.P.No.3/2010 is for restoring the order of interim stay, initially granted by this Court, when the Writ Petition was pending. This application could be disposed of along with the writ petition. 5. In the affidavit filed in support of in M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2010, after narrating the facts stated above. It has been stated that the respondents 4 & 5 herein are the Directors of the companies and it is at their instant the impugned order was passed by the third respondent. The petitioner had also relied upon the observations made by the Honble First Bench in W.A.No.1513/2009 dated 12.11.2009 and would contend that the two companies are proper and necessary parties to the writ petition. The proposed 7th respondent, M/s.Accura Electrods India Private Limited represented by the fourth respondent as its Managing Director has filed a counter affidavit contending that the impleadment of the company is unnecessary. The learned counsel appearing for the proposed party would vehemently contend that his client, namely Accura Electrods India Private Limited are unnecessarily dragged into the litigation and that the claim of the writ petition was to change the name of Accura Weldrods India Private Limited and such claim has been accepted and the name of the company has been changed as Accura Electrods India Private Limited and therefore nothing survives in the writ petition. Therefore, it is contended that the proposed 7th respondent is not a proper or necessary party. Therefore, it is contended that the proposed 7th respondent is not a proper or necessary party. It is relevant to note that the fourth respondent has filed a counter affidavit in M.P.No.3/2010, in which it is stated the companies are different from the share holders and the share holders have no right with reference to the name or the manner in which the name of the company is used and that the fourth and fifth respondents, who have right only to receive notice of meetings, receive divident, receive his or her share of assets as dividend if the company is wound up and are not necessary parties to the present Writ Petition. It is further stated no order can be passed against the person, who is not a party. Therefore, the fourth respondent appears to have raised a contention that unless the company is made a party no relief could be granted against it. In fact precisely for this reason the writ petition came to be dismissed by this Court earlier by order dated 20.08.2009. However, when the fourth respondent has sworn to a counter affidavit in the capacity of Managing Director of M/s.Accura Electrods India Private Limited has chosen to take a stand that the company, which has come into being pursuant the impugned certificate of incorporation is neither a proper or necessary party. In my view the stand taken by the proposed 7th respondent is not tenable. In fact the respondents 4 and 5 were heard by the Honble First Bench in W.A.No.1513/2009. While disposing of the Writ Appeal permission was granted to the petitioner herein to move an application for impleadment. In fact, the Honble First Bench observed that the absence of the two companies as party respondents in the writ petition has led to the dismissal of the writ petition and the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner accepted the findings of the learned single Judge. Therefore, the Honble First Bench observed instead of amending the cause title of the Writ Appeal and keeping appeal pending permission was granted to the petitioner to amend the writ petitioner itself. Based on such observation, the writ petition was restored to the file of this Court with liberty to the appellant to move necessary impleading application as well as the application for reviving the interim order. Based on such observation, the writ petition was restored to the file of this Court with liberty to the appellant to move necessary impleading application as well as the application for reviving the interim order. The learned counsel for the proposed 7th respondent would submit that the application for impleading as well as for reviving the interim order will be at the discretion of this Court. I am afraid that is not the correct interpretation of the direction issued by the Honble First Bench. The Honble First Bench took note of the fact that the writ petition having been dismissed on a technical ground instead of keeping the Writ Appeal pending and permitting amendment of cause title, the Writ Petition itself is restored of file and impleadment application could be filed. Only in respect of the revival of the interim order, the Honble First Bench observed that it will be at the discretion of this Court. Therefore, I am of the view that the proposed 6th and 7th respondents are necessarily to be impleaded. Further the impugned certification given by the third respondent is in favour of the proposed 7th respondent and the proposed 7th respondent was earlier known under the name and style as described as the proposed 6th respondent. The Directors in both the companies are the respondents 4 & 5. Therefore in order to give a binding adjudication to the matter, I deem it appropriate that the proposed 6th and 7th respondents are not only necessary parties to the writ petition, but they are also proper parties. Hence, M.P.No.1/2010 and M.P.No.2/2010 are ordered and the two companies are impleaded as 6th and 7th respondent in writ petition. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would assail the correctness of the impugned certificate of incorporation on the ground that the official respondents have a legal obligation to hold that the company cannot be registered in the said name, as within the meaning of Section 20 of the Companies Act, the name too nearly resembles the trademark of the writ petitioner that on coming to know about the incorporation of the 7th respondent company, the petitioner had and issued a legal notice to the second respondent, the firm represented by the petitioner as Managing Partner issued a legal notice to effect the change of name of the company. The various documents executed by the fourth respondent at the time of his retirement from the firm were also enclosed along with the same. However, the official respondents without acting on the said representation issued the certificate of incorporation changing the name of the company as described as the sixth respondent herein to that of the seventh respondent. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that Section 20 of the Companies Act 1956 came to be amended pursuant to Section 158 of the Trademarks Act 1999 and Sub-Section 2 of Section 20 of the Companies Act came to be inserted and by virtue of which no company shall be registered by a name, which is in the opinion of the Central Government, is undesirable. The amended Section 20(2) would states that a name which is identical with or too nearly resembles, the name by which a company in existence has been previously registered or a registered trade mark, or a trademark, which is subject of an application for registration may be deemed to be undesirable by the Central Government within the meaning of Section 20(1). The learned counsel would further submit Section 21 of the Companies Act deals with change of name by company and a company may by Special Resolution and with the approval of the Central Government signified in writing change its name. The learned counsel would contend Section 20 controls Section 21 of the Act and therefore the authorities are bound to consider whether the change of name by the company is undesirable in terms of Section 20(2). It is further submitted that Section 22 of the Act deals with rectification of name of company and it will apply to cases were through inadvertence or otherwise a company on his 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 to a company in existence or on an application by a registered proprietor of a trademark is in the opinion of the Central Government identical. At this stage, the learned counsel would submit that though in the legal notice as well as prayer in the writ petition, the petitioner has referred to Section 22 of the Companies Act and prayed for direction to take action under the said provision, the same is quoting a wrong provision of law and only Section 20 would apply to the instant case. Therefore, the learned counsel would submit that the authorities are bound to consider as to whether the change of name is undesirable and that to since action was initiated by the fourth and sixth respondents to change the name of the company as the seventh respondent, only after the petitioners legal notice dated 29.08.2008. The learned counsel would further submit that the official respondents failed to take into consideration the petitioners representations and without affording an opportunity the impugned certificate of incorporation has been given in favour of the seventh respondent. The learned counsel relied on the guidelines issued by the department of company affairs for deciding cases for availability of names. By placing reliance on guideline No. 17 & 18 as well as illustrations given under clause 18 of the guideline, would submit that the action of the official respondents is wholly illegal. 8. Mr.T.K.Seshadri, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents four and five would contend that the firm consists of two partners and only the petitioner has filed this writ petition and the other partner, the petitioners wife is not a party to the writ petition and that the writ petition has not been filed by the firm. It is further submitted that the company was incorporated under the name and style as described as the sixth respondent on 21.07.2008 and the application before the Trade Mark Registry was made by the petitioner was only made on 31.07.2008 that is after the incorporation and as such there is no violation of the procedure under the Act. On the date of filing the application for incorporation the registrar of company has given no objection, since there is no similar name already registered. Subsequently, by passing a Special Resolution and making appropriate application before the third respondent the name of the company has been changed and as on date there is only one company, Accura Electrods India Private Limited. Subsequently, by passing a Special Resolution and making appropriate application before the third respondent the name of the company has been changed and as on date there is only one company, Accura Electrods India Private Limited. It is further submitted that the relief sought for by the petitioner both before the authorities as well as in the present writ petition is for a direction of change of name of the company under Section 22 of the Companies Act. The learned senior counsel would submit that a Writ of Mandamus cannot be issued as prayed for by the petitioner, since the Companies Act contemplates a procedure. After narrating about the amendments which were made to the Companies Act in Section 20 to 22 by incorporation in the schedule to the Trademarks Act, the learned senior counsel elaborately stated about the procedure to be followed relating to rectification of name of the company and that the power under Section 22(1)(ii) could be made only by a registered proprietor of Trademark and Section 2(1)(u) defines the terms registered to mean registered under the Trademarks Act, Section 2(u) defines registered proprietor in relation to Trademark to mean the person for the time being entered in the registered as proprietor of the Trademark, Section 2(w) defines registered trademark means a Trademark, which is actually on the register and remaining in force. By referring to these provisions, the learned senior counsel would submit that as admitted by the petitioner is not a registered proprietor of the Trademark or the Trademark is actually on registered and remaining in force and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to invoke Section 22 of the Act. 9. The learned senior counsel would further submit that there is a statutory form 24 A for filing application under Section 22 of the Act and a fee has been prescribed for such application and the procedure for deciding cases of making a name available for registration under the Companies Act has been given in appendix A to Section 20 and in view of such procedure, the petitioner cannot seek for issuance of writ of mandamus as prayed for. The learned senior counsel would further submit that since disputed questions of fact are involved in the present case, the writ petition is not the remedy and if the petitioner is aggrieved, he has to approach the civil Court. The learned senior counsel would further submit that since disputed questions of fact are involved in the present case, the writ petition is not the remedy and if the petitioner is aggrieved, he has to approach the civil Court. Further, it is submitted that even as per the legal notice issued by the petitioner to the official respondents on 29.08.2008 all that the petitioner wanted was change of name and the same has been complied with by passing a Special Resolution by the Company and there is nothing more to be adjudicated. The learned senior counsel by relying upon Section 22(1) would contend that the procedures contemplated under the statue having been followed a certificate of incorporation has been issued and it is completed an effective. By virtue of such registration in terms of Section 34(2), the company shall be a body corporate by name contain the memorandum capable of exercising all the functions of an incorporated company. Therefore, the learned counsel would submit that the writ petition is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. The learned senior counsel in support of his contentions relied upon the following decisions:- Volume 2005 ITR page 508- Hope Textiles Ltd. and another Vs. Union of India and others, Volume 98 Company cases 432-Manipal Housing Finance Syndicate Ltd and Others Vs. Manipal stock and share brokers Ltd. and others, Volume 103 Company cases 841-Kothari Products Limited Vs. Registrar of Companies and other (Alahabad High Court) Volume 106 Company cases page 558 -Kalpana Polytec India Ltd. And Others Vs. Union of India and others (Calcutta High Court), W.P.No.462/2009 dated 10.06.2009 (Bombay High Court). 10. Finally, the learned senior counsel would submit that the word Accura is a generic name and there are several such companies incorporated under the said name and the learned counsel produced copy of information downloaded from the website to show that there are several companies by name Accura Constructions, Accura Estates, Accura Engineers etc., and contend that the contentions raised by the petitioner are wholly untenable. 11. 11. Mr.C.Umashankar, learned counsel appearing for the seventh respondent while adopting the legal submissions made by the learned senior counsel for the fourth and fifth respondents would contend that the relief claimed by the petitioner was to change the name of Accura Weldrods and the same has been done and the seventh respondent has been incorporated and sixth respondent is no longer legal entity and if any orders are passed, it will have an effect of crushing down the seventh respondent company. 13. In reply, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that there are two limbs of the prayer in the writ petition, the first limb is for a writ of Certiorarified to quash the certificate of incorporation dated 24.08.2008 and the other limb of prayer is of issue of writ of Mandamus to consider the petitioners application. The learned counsel would reiterate that the petitioner has quoted a wrong provision of law and the correct provision which should be applied is Section 20 and while effecting change of name the procedure required to be seen under Section 20 has to be applied with. The learned counsel would also rely upon Section 18(1) of the Act, which deals with alteration to be registered within three months. It is further submitted that the company was incorporated on 21.07.2008 and what has been done by the Special Resolution dated 13.10.2008 is to change the name of the company and the fresh certificate of incorporation given with the change the name carries the same corporate identity number and the change of name dates back to 21.07.2008. Therefore, the learned counsel would submit as the official respondents have not taken into consideration the requirements of Section 20 of the Act, while effecting the change of name of the company, it has to be held that the change of name of the company is bad in law. 14. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsels for the parties and perused the materials on record. 15. 14. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsels for the parties and perused the materials on record. 15. The preliminary objection of the learned senior counsel appearing for the fourth and fifth respondents is that the writ petition is not maintainable for the relief prayed for by relying upon the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Hope Textiles Ltd, referred supra, it is submitted that a writ of mandamus cannot be issued to compel a statutory authority to pass an order in violation of a statutory provision. The contention raised by the learned senior counsel is that the Section 22 of the Companies Act expressely provides for in the institution and disposal of an application filed by an aggrieved party and the Central Government can form an opinion that the names of two companies are identical or nearly resembles. The registered name of another company and such jurisdiction can be invoked by an aggrieved company also and that the power under Section 22 (1)(d) of the Act has to be exercised within 12 months of the first registration or registration by its new name and once a period lapses the Government loses its authority to issue such direction. 16. The learned senior counsel by also relying upon the decision of the Bombay High Court in W.P.No.462/2009, referred supra, would contend that if the prayer sought for by the writ petitioner is acceded to it would be amounting to directing the authority to violate the procedure under Section 22. In my view this question as to whether the authority has to exercise the power under Section 22 of the Act is not required to be considered, since the petitioners claim itself is by relying on Section 20 and Section 21 of the Act. It is true that the relief claimed in the writ petition as well as in the earlier legal notice, the petitioner has referred to Section 22 of the Act. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would admit that the petitioner has quoted a wrong provision of law and that should not be put against the petitioner while deciding the writ petition and by merely quoting a wrong provision of law, it cannot be said that the authorities would refuse to took into provisions of statute and Act in accordance with law. I am inclined to accept the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner has quoted a wrong provision of law and this Court being court of equity, would consider the petitioners case being a case of falling under the provisions of 20 and 21 of the Act since, the Honble Supreme Court on several occasions held that quoting a wrong provision of law will not dis-entitled the party to the relief. Having held so it may not be necessary to deal with the various contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned senior counsel appearing for the fourth and fifth respondents, as regards the procedure to be adopted as regards the manner in which the power under Section 22 should be exercised its procedures and other matters connected their with. 17. The following facts should be relevant for deciding the controversy namely the facts relating to the formation of the partnership firm its reconstitution twice, retirement of the fourth respondent and finally by reconstituting the firm with the petitioner and his wife as its partner. The controversy in the matter is that the fourth respondent is stated to have executed a deed of assignment of trademark and a non-compete agreement, deed of assignment in favour of the petitioner and the case of the petitioner appears to be that in the non-compete agreement dated 22.06.2008, the fourth respondent agreed that he or legal heirs will use the name "Sunbond" or trade logo "SB" and that he is fully aware that he has no right over the said intangible asset including the goodwill of the firm M/s.Accura Weldrods. 18. Therefore, the petitioner contentions that the fourth respondent cannot incorporate a company using name M/s.Accura Weldrods because of the documents he had executed in favour of the firm as well as the petitioner and his wife. It is to be noted that the fourth and fifth respondents applied for incorporation of the company M/s.Accura Weldrods India Private Limited, before the third respondent on 03.06.2008 and the fourth respondent had retired from the partnership firm M/s.Accura Welrods on 22.06.2008, executed non-compete agreement on 22.06.2008 and affidavit on 04.07.2008 as well as a deed of assignment of trade mark on 04.07.2008. In which it appears that he has said that he will have no right over the intangible assets including goodwill of firm M/s.Accura Weldrods. This application dated 03.06.2008 made to the third respondent was considered and certificate of incorporation was issued on 21.07.2008 for the sixth respondent company. On 31.07.2008, the petitioner herein and his wife submitted an application before the trademark registry for registering the trademark "Accura Weldrods" and in the application the petitioner stated that they are trading as "Accura Weldrods" and claimed users since 12.07.2000, the date on which the original partnership firm came in to being with the fourth and fifth respondents as partners. This application is stated to be pending. The case of the petitioner is that it is only thereafter he came to know that the fourth and fifth respondents had incorporated the sixth respondent company and that application was filed before the third respondent even prior to executing the deed of retirement and certificate of incorporation was issued by the third respondent on 21.07.2008 on coming to know of the same, the partnership firm represented by the Managing partner caused a legal notice on 29.08.2008 to the second respondent with copy mark to the third respondent. The claim of the petitioner is that the fourth has no right to use the name of "Accura Weldrods" which according to the petitioner is the trade mark of the partnership firm and an application of the registration of the mark is pending before the trademark registry. Therefore, called upon the second and third respondents to change the name of the company. It is not in dispute that the respondents 2 to 4 have received the legal notice. It appears that after the legal notice the department has made certain correspondence with the fourth respondent without reference to the petitioner, but from the document produced in the typed set of papers there appears to have been correspondence between the third respondent and the fourth respondent and in the reply given by the fourth respondent dated 29.08.2008, the fourth respondent had admitted that he was a partner of the firm and Accura Weldrods has been registered under the Trademark Act and he retired form the partnership Accura Weldrods and therefore, he has decided to change the name of the sixth respondent company to M/s.Accura Weldrods India Private Limited. In my view the "lis" had commenced at this stage. In my view the "lis" had commenced at this stage. The decision to change the name of the company from that of the Accura Weldrods India Private Limited into Accura Electrodes India Private Limited has occasioned because of the objection conveyed by the petitioner by his legal notice. It is to be noted that in the legal notice the agreement between the parties have been set out in detail, copies of 12 documents are stated to have been enclosed along with the legal notice. If that be the case, principles of natural justice would demand that the petitioner should have been put on notice prior to taking further step in the application submitted by the fourth respondent for change of name of company. However, this has not been done in the present case. Though the statute does not contemplate such a notice, when the dispute has commenced and it is brought to the notice of the authorities by one of the parties to the dispute, namely the petitioner, and the fourth respondent having chosen to act on such legal notice, and filed an application for change of name of the company, in my view such application for change of name ought to have been decided after hearing the parties, namely the petitioner and the respondents 4,5 and 6. 19. In fact there is an undated correspondence between the sixth respondent and the third respondent. The letter has been signed by the fourth respondent as Managing Director and the letter deals with the subject change of name of company and refers to statutory form 1 B in SRN A 47325204 dated 17.10.2008, it is useful to refer to the contention of the said letters, which reads as follows:- "To The Register of Companies, Tamil Nadu, Coimbatore. Respected Sir, Sub:- Change of company Name Reg., Ref:-Form 1B, SRN:A 47325204, dated 17.10.2008. We have received notice from my erstwhile partner (Sri Nanthagopal & others) in a firm called "Accura Weldrods" in which I (P.Selvaraj) was one of the Partner. I relinquished all my rights and entitlements to the continuing partners. For better understanding and to avoid legal proceedings, the Directors of the newly registered Company (Accura Weldrods India Private Limited) have unanimously decided to change the name as Accura Electrods India Private Limited." 20. I relinquished all my rights and entitlements to the continuing partners. For better understanding and to avoid legal proceedings, the Directors of the newly registered Company (Accura Weldrods India Private Limited) have unanimously decided to change the name as Accura Electrods India Private Limited." 20. Thus, it is clear that based on certain quarry raised by the third respondent, the sixth respondent company represented by the fourth respondent as Managing Director while acknowledging the receipt of the legal notice sent by the petitioner and others from the firm Accura Weldrods stated that he has relinquished all his rights and entitlements to the continuing partner and to avoid legal proceedings, they have to decide to change the name of company to that of the seventh respondent. In my view even prior to this stage the third respondent ought to have issued notice both to the petitioner as well as the respondents 4 to 6 before proceedings further in the matter. Therefore, once an application for change of name, which appears to have been made by the sixth respondent on 17.10.2008, then such change of name could be by a Special resolution with approval of the Central Government signified in writing. In the present case, the third respondent is the delegate of the Central Government. At that stage prior to signifying such approval, it would be incumbent upon by the third respondent to ensure that the change of name is not registered with an undesirable name. In terms of Section 20(2) of the Companies Act a name, which is identical with or too nearly resembles a trademark, which is subject of an application for registration of any other person under the Trademarks Act 1999 is deemed to be an undesirable name within the meaning of Section 20(1). 21. Therefore, such application for change of name has to be considered in the light of Section 20 and the procedure to be adopted is given in the guidelines issued by the department of company affairs, which has spelt out detailed guidelines to be followed. Clause 18 of the guidelines would be relevant to the facts of the present case, which reads as follows:- "18. If a name is identical with or too nearly resembles the name by which a company in existence has been previously registered. [Guideline No.21 relating to Companies in Insurance sector has been partially modified. Clause 18 of the guidelines would be relevant to the facts of the present case, which reads as follows:- "18. If a name is identical with or too nearly resembles the name by which a company in existence has been previously registered. [Guideline No.21 relating to Companies in Insurance sector has been partially modified. See para 5 of Circular NO.6 of 1999, dated 13.05.1999 printed hereinafter]. However, if a proposed company is to be under the same management or in the same group and likes to have a closely resembling name to an existing company under the same management or group with a view to have advantage of the goodwill attached to the management or group name such a name may be allowed. Even in the case of unregistered companies of firms which have built up a reputation over a considerable period, the principle (that if a name is identical with or too closely resembles the name by which a company has been previously registered and is in existence, it should not be allowed) should be observed as far as practicable. In view of the difficulty in checking up whether a proposed name is identical with or too nearly resembling the name of an unregistered company or a firm of repute, if should at least be ensured that a proposed name is not allowed if it is identical with or too nearly resembles the name of a firm within the knowledge of the Registrar. The cases of foreign companies of repute should also be similarly treated even if there are no branches of such companies in India."(emphasis supplied) 22. Therefore, the authorities are bound by the such procedure and in the instant case, it is the evident that such procedure has not been followed. Hence, the only conclusion which could be arrived at is that the provisions of the statute have not been looked into, the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity by the third respondent in spite of having received the legal notice and entertained the request by the sixth respondent for change of name and more particularly, when the sixth respondent in their letter admitted that the change of name has been necessitated to avoid legal complications. In the same letter, the sixth respondent has also admitted that he has relinquished all his rights and entitlements to the continuing partners of the firm Accura Weldrods. In the same letter, the sixth respondent has also admitted that he has relinquished all his rights and entitlements to the continuing partners of the firm Accura Weldrods. Therefore, when the factual scenario is thus the third respondent ought not to have decided the application of change of name without hearing the aggrieved parties, namely the firm (Accura Weldrods represented its partners). It is made clear that this Court has not adjudicated into the merits of the claims made by the petitioner before the Registrar of Trademarks nor on the contention raised by the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents four and five stating that "Accura" is a generic name, that they are entitled to use the same and incorporate the company, the seventh respondent herein. 23. This Court has come to a conclusion that there has been violation of principles of natural justice and the decision making process which ultimately culminated in the impugned certificate of incorporation is erroneous and the proper and necessary parties were not afforded an opportunity by the third respondent and that there is no record to show that while effecting the change of name and granting approval under Section 20 of the Act that the third respondent had considered the aspects as to whether the change of name is "undesirable" within the scope of Section 20(2) (ii) of the Companies Act. In view of the same, I am inclined to interfere in the impugned certificate of incorporation. In view of the above reasoning and the nature of relief to be granted the other issues raised by the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents fourth and fifth as to whether the petitioner is a owner of registered mark or otherwise is not required to be considered at this stage of the matter. 24. For the above reasons, the petitioner is entitled to succeed and accordingly, the writ petition is allowed, the impugned certificate of incorporation is set aside and the matter is remanded back for fresh consideration of the third respondent on merits and in accordance with law, after issuing notice to the partners of the firm M/s.Accura Weldrods, the seventh respondent as well as the respondents four and five, Directors of the seventh respondent company, which was formally incorporated under the name and style of the sixth respondent company. The third respondent shall issue notice to the parties above mentioned within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and thereafter consider the objections placed by all the parties and decide the application for change of name submitted by the erstwhile sixth respondent company under Section 21 and in doing so the third respondent shall also decide as to whether the proposed change of name is not undesirable under Section 20(2) (ii) of the Companies Act 1956 and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from the date of the objections submitted by the parties. 25. With the above observations the writ petition is allowed. Consequently connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.