Bisazza India Ltd. vs Pino Bisazza Glass (P) Ltd. and Anr.
Rectification of name of company - Regional Director empowered to pass order
The high court, on the contention that when the Regional Director had been directed by the high court to expeditiously dispose of petitioner’s application the period of limitation would not apply, noted that the Regional Director had passed an order directing the respondent to change its name within a period of three months from the date of order under s.22(1) of the Companies Act 1956. It was observed that the period of one year had expired from the date of incorporation of the respondent. Even on the date of order passed by the high court directing the Regional Director to pass final order after giving reasons, the period of one year had expired. The respondent did not take the point of limitation at the time of order passed by the high court. The high court had not fixed any time limit on the Regional Director to pass order. Moreover, the Regional Director had issued directions under s.22 of the Act to change the name of the respondent within one year period of limitation. At the instance of the respondent, the high court had directed the Regional Director to pass final order after hearing the parties and after giving reasons. The Regional Director had to act in terms of the high court’s order and as such he had power to pass order under s.22 of the Act even after the expiry of the period of one year.
