O.P. Garg And Ors vs Archies Greetings And Gifts Ltd. And Ors.

S. Usha, Technical Member

1 . M.P. Nos. 15-17/2009 are filed by the petitioner (respondent No. 1 in TRA/17-19/2005/TM/DEL) to amend the cause title of the respondent No. 1

as there has been a change in the name of the company. M.P. Nos. 21-23/2008 are for condoning the delay in filing documents and to take on record

the same.

The miscellaneous petitions came up for hearing on 12.02.2009 before the Circuit Bench at Delhi. Learned Counsel Shri A.K. Goel appeared on

behalf of the petitioner (respondent in main rectification application) and Shri Shailen Bhatia appeared on behalf of the respondent (applicant in main

rectification application). The three rectification applications are one and the same, as the parties and the issues involved are common. Hence all the

miscellaneous petitions were heard together with the consent of both the counsel.

First we shall deal with the miscellaneous petitions to amend the cause title. The respondent No. 1 company which was earlier known as Archies

Greetings and Gifts Ltd., has been changed as Archies Limited and the same has been registered before the Registrar of Companies and the

certificate of incorporation issued. The respondent No. 1 has also made a request before the Registrar of Trade Marks on application in Form TM-33

to enter the change of name and the said application is pending. The petitioner/respondent No. 1, therefore, prayed that the change in the name be

incorporated and the cause title be allowed to be amended.

The respondent/applicant in the rectification application consented for allowing the petition with an objection that there has been a long delay in filing

this petition.

5 . We therefore, do not think it necessary to go into the petition in detail, but to allow the miscellaneous petitions. Accordingly M.P. Nos. 15-17/2009

are allowed. The applicant is, therefore, directed to file amended copies of applications within three weeks from the date of receipt of this order. The

applicant may carry out the amendment in the main applications during the Circuit Bench sitting at New Delhi as and when the matter is posted.

Next, we shall deal with the miscellaneous petitions to condone the delay and take on record the documents. The petitioner/respondent stated that

there was a direction by this Appellate Board to file evidence within two weeks from 07.01.2008. The evidence has been filed after four weeks after

a delay of two weeks. The petitioner further stated that the delay was due to the reason that it took time for the official to search and collect the

documents from various divisions of the company. The delay is not intentional. The delay be condoned in the interest of justice.

The respondent (applicant in the main application) filed their reply to the petition to condone the delay. They stated that the only reason given for the

delay was that it took time to search for the documents which cannot be accepted. The respondent has taken different stands now at this stage. They

are trying to bring new documents. The new documents be rejected and may not be taken on record.

8 . The learned Counsel for the petitioner/respondent contended that it was only registration certificates that are now newly added and the other

documents are in reply to the allegations made by the respondent (applicant in the main application). He also relied on various judgements to condone

the delay.

9 . In reply to the petitioner's contention, the Counsel for the respondent in the miscellaneous petition submitted that no new allegation has been made,

therefore, the new documents may not be taken on record. The petitioner herein was only directed to file affidavit and not the evidences. He further

submitted that the judgements relied on by the petitioner were not applicable to this case on hand.

We have considered the arguments of both the counsel. The petition before us is to condone the delay in filing the documents. On perusal of the

directions of the Bench on 07.01.008, the petitioners were directed to file evidence- Counsel for the respondent has to file his evidence along with the

affidavit in all the three applications separately within two weeks and the Counsel for applicant has to file his reply, if any, within ten days thereafter.

In view of the above, the contention of the respondent (applicant in the main application) that only affidavit was to be filed and not the documents

does not sustain. The respondent's (applicant in the main application) submission that new documents cannot be taken on record is also rejected as

those are only registration certificates which are public documents. We, therefore, condone the delay in filing the documents and allow the petitions

and take the documents on record. As already directed the applicant (respondent in the miscellaneous petition) is directed to file his reply within three

weeks.

Accordingly, M.P. Nos. 21-23/2008 are allowed. No order as to costs.