# C/M Madarsa Ehle Sunnat Sirajul Uloom Sultanpur v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2024) 8 ILRA 1106
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-08-01
- **Case number:** Writ - C No. 1000448 of 2010
- **Bench:** Alok Mathur
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/c-m-madarsa-ehle-sunnat-sirajul-uloom-sultanpur-v-state-of-u-p-52405
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

Law
-
U.P.
Societies
Registration
Act,
1860
-
Section
3(2)(Ka) and (kha) - 12-D sub Clause 2 -
The amendments made in the Act vide
Act No. 52/75 are prospective in nature.
Prior to the date of amendment Section
12-D (1) or section 12 of the Act do not
in any way confer a power upon the
Assistant
Registrar
to
cancel
the
registration, which has been granted to
a society in the same name prior to the
date of enforcement of S.3(2)(a) under
U.P. Act No. 52/75.

There was no restriction under the Societies
Registration
Act,
1860
prohibiting
the
registration of a new society, in the year
1973 with the same name vis-a-vis the
name of the society, which was earlier
registered in the year 1964, Therefore,
there was no occasion for the Assistant
Registrar to exercise the power u/s 12-D
(1) of the Act of 1860 for cancelling the
registration of the petitioner society on the
pretext that there was restriction for
registration of a society in the same name
and style as that of an earlier registered
society. (Para 18)
The amended statutory provisions of 3(2)(a)
have no application in the facts of the present
case and as a consequent thereto to the
orders passed by the Assistant Registrar
dated 12.3.1992 and that of passed by the
Commissioner dated 7.4.1993 cannot be
legally sustained. (Para 19)

B. Power to refuse the registration of
the society cannot be enlarged to the
extent so as to confer a power upon the
Registrar to cancel the registration of
the society with the same name. No
incidental power can be culled out from
the provisions of Section 3 as were
applicable in the year 1973, nor any
inherent power can be read from any
other
provisions
of
the
Societies
Registration Act, 1860. (Para 20)

Apart
from
certain
special
statutes
which entitle companies or persons to
the exclusive use of a name or a mark,
such as the Companies Act or the Trade
Marks Act, a man has no exclusive
proprietary rights in a fancy name or
title, and normally and principally, it is in
relation to the user of a name associated with
a certain businesses or trading concern or
some profession that the Court affords
protection
and
grants
an
injunction
restraining the adoption and use of such a
name by another when the Court is satisfied
that damage has been caused or there is
tangible risk or possibility of a damage
resulting from confusion caused in the public
mind or in other words by reason of the
public being deceived by the use of such
name. (Para 21)

C. Only Courts of law have been conferred
a power to grant an injunction restraining
the adoption and use of the same name
when the Court is satisfied that damage
has been caused or there is tangible risk
or, possibility of a damage resulting from
confusion caused in public mind, or the
public being deceived by the use of the
identical name and style.

It is established beyond doubt that it is for the
respondents to have initiated suitable Civil
Injunction
Proceedings,
if
they
had
any
8 All. C/M Madarsa Ehle Sunnat Sirajul Uloom Sultanpur Vs. State of U.P.
1107
apprehension of misuse of the name of the
respondent by the subsequent society being
registered. The claim, if any, so pleaded would
be adjudged by the Civil Court, on the basis of
evidence led and the extent of damage/loss,
which may be caused. However, they cannot be
permitted to invoke the authority of the
Registrar himself to cancel the registration.
(Para 22)

Writ petition allowed. (E-4)

## Text

1106 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
----------
(2024) 8 ILRA 1106
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 01.08.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J.

Writ - C No. 1000448 of 2010

C/M Madarsa Ehle Sunnat Sirajul Uloom
Sultanpur ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Dr. L.P. Misra, G.M. Kamil

Counsel for the Respondent:
C.S.C., Ausaf Ahmad Khan, M.B. Singh

A.
Societies
Law
-
U.P.
Societies
Registration
Act,
1860
-
Section
3(2)(Ka) and (kha) - 12-D sub Clause 2 -
The amendments made in the Act vide
Act No. 52/75 are prospective in nature.
Prior to the date of amendment Section
12-D (1) or section 12 of the Act do not
in any way confer a power upon the
Assistant
Registrar
to
cancel
the
registration, which has been granted to
a society in the same name prior to the
date of enforcement of S.3(2)(a) under
U.P. Act No. 52/75.

There was no restriction under the Societies
Registration
Act,
1860
prohibiting
the
registration of a new society, in the year
1973 with the same name vis-a-vis the
name of the society, which was earlier
registered in the year 1964, Therefore,
there was no occasion for the Assistant
Registrar to exercise the power u/s 12-D
(1) of the Act of 1860 for cancelling the
registration of the petitioner society on the
pretext that there was restriction for
registration of a society in the same name
and style as that of an earlier registered
society. (Para 18)
The amended statutory provisions of 3(2)(a)
have no application in the facts of the present
case and as a consequent thereto to the
orders passed by the Assistant Registrar
dated 12.3.1992 and that of passed by the
Commissioner dated 7.4.1993 cannot be
legally sustained. (Para 19)

B. Power to refuse the registration of
the society cannot be enlarged to the
extent so as to confer a power upon the
Registrar to cancel the registration of
the society with the same name. No
incidental power can be culled out from
the provisions of Section 3 as were
applicable in the year 1973, nor any
inherent power can be read from any
other
provisions
of
the
Societies
Registration Act, 1860. (Para 20)

Apart
from
certain
special
statutes
which entitle companies or persons to
the exclusive use of a name or a mark,
such as the Companies Act or the Trade
Marks Act, a man has no exclusive
proprietary rights in a fancy name or
title, and normally and principally, it is in
relation to the user of a name associated with
a certain businesses or trading concern or
some profession that the Court affords
protection
and
grants
an
injunction
restraining the adoption and use of such a
name by another when the Court is satisfied
that damage has been caused or there is
tangible risk or possibility of a damage
resulting from confusion caused in the public
mind or in other words by reason of the
public being deceived by the use of such
name. (Para 21)

C. Only Courts of law have been conferred
a power to grant an injunction restraining
the adoption and use of the same name
when the Court is satisfied that damage
has been caused or there is tangible risk
or, possibility of a damage resulting from
confusion caused in public mind, or the
public being deceived by the use of the
identical name and style.

It is established beyond doubt that it is for the
respondents to have initiated suitable Civil
Injunction
Proceedings,
if
they
had
any
8 All. C/M Madarsa Ehle Sunnat Sirajul Uloom Sultanpur Vs. State of U.P.
1107
apprehension of misuse of the name of the
respondent by the subsequent society being
registered. The claim, if any, so pleaded would
be adjudged by the Civil Court, on the basis of
evidence led and the extent of damage/loss,
which may be caused. However, they cannot be
permitted to invoke the authority of the
Registrar himself to cancel the registration.
(Para 22)

Writ petition allowed. (E-4)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Alok Mathur, J.)

1. Heard Dr. L.P. Mishra, learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner, Shri
S.K. Khare, learned Standing Counsel
appearing for the State-respondent nos. 1 to
4 and perused the material available on
record.

2. It has been submitted by learned
counsel for petitioner that one society
under the name of "Edara Madarsa AhleSunnat Sirajul-Uloom Latifiya, Nihalgarh,
Post Jagdishpur, District Sultanpur" was
registered on 08.08.1973 but its registration
was not renewed subsequently and also that
no educational institution was run by the
said society.

3. It is not in dispute that the Manager
of the aforesaid society along with certain
other members had moved an application
for registration of another society under the
name & style of "Madarsa Ahle-Sunnat
Sirajul-Uloom Latifiya, which was duly
registered on 17.10.1974. The subsequent
society had a similar name as the previous
society except that the word "Edara" was
not included in the name of the subsequent
society, which is the petitioner's society.
Educational institutions were established
by the petitioner-society and recognition
was also granted to them on 17.6.1977 and
even permanent recognition was granted by
the State of U.P. for the purpose of grantin-aid on 06.08.1979.

4. It is the aforesaid circumstances
that respondent no. 5 made a complaint on
12.5.2009 to the Deputy Registrar, Firms
Societies and Chits, U.P. Faizabad stating
that the name of the petitioner-society was
the same as the previous society, namely,
"Edara
Madarsa
Ahle-Sunnat
SirajulUloom Latifiya" and accordingly, sought
cancellation of its registration. It is on the
complaint made by respondent no. 5 that
proceedings under Section 12-D sub Clause
2 of the U.P. Societies Registration, Act,
1860 were instituted and the petitioner
society was put under notice seeking the
response to the complaint made by
respondent no. 5. The petitioner had duly
opposed the averments made in the
complaint and submitted that the previous
society, namely, "Madarsa Ahle-Sunnat
Sirajul-Uloom Latifiya, was a defunct
society, inasmuch as, its registration was
never renewed after 1975 till the year 2009.
In any view of the matter, the previous
society was not running any institution and
even otherwise, it is stated that the name of
the petitioner society was materially
different from the name of the previous
society, inasmuch as the word "Edara" was
not included in the name of the petitionersociety.

5. The Deputy Registrar by means of
order dated 28.08.2009 was of the view that
the same person was responsible for
registering
the
previous
society
on
30.7.1973 while second society was also
registered on the application given by
Mohd. Hanif Azmi, who was the Manager
and he was aware of the similarity in the
said name and he had concealed the fact
about the registration of the first society
and due to the said fact, it was found that
1108 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
there was violation of Section 3 (2) (Ka)
and (Kha) of the Societies Registration,
Act, 1860 and accordingly, cancelled the
registration of the petitioner-society while
exercising its power under Section 12-D (1)
(C) of the U.P. Societies Registration Act,
1860.

6. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid
order, the petitioner had filed an appeal
before
the
Commissioner,
Faizabad
Division, Faizabad, which was also rejected
by means of order dated 13.01.2010
upholding
the order
of
the
Deputy
Registrar, against which, the present writ
petition has been filed.

7. Learned counsel for petitioner has
firstly submitted that the Deputy Registrar
as well as the Commissioner had wrongly
invoked the powers under Section 3 (2)
(Ka) & (Kha) of the Societies Registration
Act to cancel the registration of the society
of the petitioner institution. He submits that
the provisions of Section 3 (2) were
incorporated by the legislature and came
into effect only on 10.10.1975 by the
amending
Act
No.
52/75
while
undoubtedly the petitioner society was
registered
previously
on
17.10.1974.
Accordingly, at the relevant time, the
statutory bar of Section 3 (2) of the Act of
1860 was not available and accordingly, it
was submitted that the Deputy Registrar
has exceeded its jurisdiction and passed
illegal and arbitrary order while cancelling
the registration of the petitioner.

8. He has further submitted that even
considering the provisions of 3 (2) (Ka) &
(Kha) of the Act of 1860, it would be clear
that statutory bar is only with regard to
registration of the second society whose
name is identical with that of any other
society previously registered under the Act.
In this regard, he submits that there is no
doubt that the previous society had the
word "Edara" included in the said name
while the petitioner society does not
include the word "Edara" and consequently,
the name of petitioner society is not
identical and accordingly, the bar created
under Section 3 (2) (b) of the Act of 1860
would not be available to the authorities to
cancel the registration of the petitioner. It
has also been submitted that since the date
of registration, the society is getting its
renewal whenever required continuously.

9. Learned Standing Counsel on the
other hand has opposed the writ petition but
could not dispute the facts of the said case.

10. This Court has considered the
rival submissions of learned counsel for the
parties and perused the material available
on record.

11. It is noticed that one society by
the name of "Edara Madarsa Ahle-Sunnat
Sirajul-Uloom
Latifiya"
was
duly
registered on 8.8.1973 and the same person
had moved a subsequent application on
15.10.1974 for registration of the petitioner
society which was registered on 17.10.1974
by the name of "Madarsa Ahle-Sunnat
Sirajul-Uloom Latifiya". The Societies
Registration Act, 1860 was amended in
Uttar Pradesh by the Act of 52/75 effective
from 10.10.1975 specifically modifying
Section 3 regarding the registration process
for societies. The amendment clarifies that
there was no restriction for registration of
the society with an identical name to
another previously registered society as of
1973.

12. The issue before this Court is
as to whether the order dated 28.08.2009
passed by the Deputy Registrar, Firms
8 All. C/M Madarsa Ehle Sunnat Sirajul Uloom Sultanpur Vs. State of U.P.
1109
Societies and Chits, U.P. Faizabad as well
as order passed by the Commissioner,
Faizabad
Division,
Faizabad
dated
13.01.2010 cancelling the registration of
the
petitioner
society
were
legally
sustainable?

13. It has also been submitted on
behalf of the petitioner that the orders
passed by the Deputy Registrar and by the
Commissioner proceeded on misconception
of fact as well as law, inasmuch as, at the
time when the new society was registered
in the similar name and style as that of the
earlier society, there was no restriction for
the second society to be registered with the
similar or identical name and style as of the
earlier society. The restriction in this regard
has been brought about by the amendment
to Section 3 (2) (a) which has been added
by the Act of 52/75 with effect from
10.10.1975. It is therefore, submitted that
there was no illegality or infirmity in the
registration of the new society in the
similar name and style as of the earlier
society, which was registered on 8.8.1973.

14. On behalf of the respondents, it
has been fairly submitted that at the time
of registration of the petitioner society,
there was no restriction in registration of
two societies with the same name and
style. The amendment in this regard has
been enforced by the Act No. 52/75. It
has also been submitted that there is an
inherent power/ jurisdiction refuse to
recognize the registration of the society
in the same name and style, inasmuch as,
the same would necessarily lead to
confusion and would seriously prejudice
the activities of the earlier society and
therefore, under the said inherent power,
the Deputy Registrar has also power to
cancel the registration granted to the
subsequent society in the same name and
style that as of the earlier society, which
was registered on 8.8.1973.

15. For the purposes of appreciating
the controversy, it would be relevant to
refer the provisions of Section 3 of the
Societies Registration, Act, 1860, as were
applicable in the year 1973, which are
quoted here-in-below:-

"3. Registration and fees.--Upon
such memorandum and certified copy
being filed, the Registrar shall certify
under his hand that the society is
registered under this Act, There shall be
paid to the Registrar for every such
registration a fee of fifty rupees or such
smaller fee as (the State Government)
may, from time to time, direct ; and all
fees so paid shall be accounted for to (the
State Government)".

16. Reference may also be had to
the provisions of Section 3 as were
amended in the State of Uttar Pradesh
vide Act No. 52/75 and the said
amendments
were
enforced
w.e.f.
10.10.1975. The said amended Section 3
in the State of U.P. reads as follows :

"In its application to the State of
Uttar Pradesh, for Section 3, substitute the
following section, namely :

"3. (1) Upon such memorandum
and certified copy being filed along with
particulars of the address of the Society's
office which shall be in registered address,
by the Secretary of the Society on behalf of
the
persons
subscribing
to
the
memorandum, the Registrar shall certify
under his hand that the society is registered
under this Act. There shall be paid to the
Registrar for every such registration a fee
of one hundred rupees (or such smaller fee
1110 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
as the State Government may notify in
respect of any class of societies) :

Provided that the Registrar may,
in his discretion, issue public notice or
issue notice to such persons as he thinks fit
inviting objections, if any, against the
proposed registration and consider all
objections that may be received by him
before registering the society.

(2) Notwithstanding anything in
Sub-section (1) the Registrar shall refuse to
register a society, if after giving it an
opportunity of showing cause against such
refusal, he is satisfied that-
 (a) the name of the society is
identical with that if any other society
previously registered under this Act;

(b) the name of the society sought
to be registered uses any of the words,
namely, 'union', 'State', 'Land Mortgage',
'Land
Development',
'Co-operative
Gandhi', 'Reserve Bank' or any words
expressing or implying the sanction,
approval or patronage of the Central or
any State Government or any word which
suggests or is calculated to suggest any
connection with any local authority or any
corporation or body constituted by or
under any law for the time being in force or
is such as is otherwise likely to deceive the
public or the members of any other society
previously registered under this Act."

17.

From
the
aforesaid
amendment, it is apparently clear that in the
year
1973
there
was
absolutely
no
restriction under the Societies Registration
Act, 1860 with regard to the registration of
a society with identical name and style as
that of other society previously registered.

18. In view of the aforesaid, there
was no restriction under the Societies
Registration Act, 1860 prohibiting the
registration of a new society, in the year
1973 with the same name vis-a-vis the
name of the society, which was earlier
registered in the year 1964, Therefore,
there was no occasion for the Assistant
Registrar to exercise the power under
Section
12-D
(1)
of
the
Societies
Registration Act, 1860 for cancelling the
registration of the petitioner society on the
pretext that there was restriction for
registration of a society in the same name
and style as that of an earlier registered
society. The amendments made in the Act
vide Act No. 52/75 are prospective in
nature. Prior to the date of aforesaid
amendment Section 12-D (1) or section 12
of the Act do not in any way confer a
power upon the Assistant Registrar to
cancel the registration, which has been
granted to a society in the same name prior
to the date of enforcement of section 3 (2)
(a) under U.P. Act No. 52/75.

19. In the opinion of the Court, the
aforesaid amended statutory provisions of
3 (2) (a) have no application in the facts of
the present case and as a consequent thereto
to the orders passed by the Assistant
Registrar dated 12.3.1992 and that of
passed
by
the
Commissioner
dated
7.4.1993 cannot be legally sustained.

20. At this stage it would be
appropriate to consider to the contention
raised by the petitioner with regard to the
inherent power of the Assistant Registrar to
refuse the registration to a society by the
same name coupled with the incidental
power to cancel the registration of a
society, if granted, by him in the same
name. In the opinion of the Court, no such
incidental power can be culled out from the
provisions of Section 3 as were applicable
in the year 1973, nor any such inherent
power can be read from any other
provisions of the Societies Registration
8 All. Ram Bux & Ors. Vs. The State of U.P. & Anr.
1111
Act, 1860. Power to refuse the registration
of the society cannot be enlarged to the
extent so as to confer a power upon the
Registrar to cancel the registration of the
society with the same name.

21. It is true that apart from certain
special statutes which entitle companies or
persons to the exclusive use of a name or a
mark, such as the Companies Act or the
Trade Marks Act, a man has no exclusive
proprietary rights in a fancy name or title,
and normally and principally, it is in
relation to the user of a name associated
with a certain businesses or trading concern
or some profession that the Court affords
protection
and
grants
an
injunction
restraining the adoption and use of such a
name by another when the Court is satisfied
that damage has been caused or there is
tangible risk or possibility of a damage
resulting from confusion caused in the
public mind or in other words by reason of
the public being deceived by the use of
such name."

22. It is, thus, clear that only
Courts of law have been conferred a power
to grant an injunction restraining the
adoption and use of the same name when
the Court is satisfied that damage has been
caused or there is tangible risk or,
possibility of a damage resulting from
confusion caused in public mind, or the
public being deceived by the use of the
identical name and style. This power to
grant injunction against the use of same
name and style as recognised by the Courts
of law is based upon a cause established by
the
plaintiff
of
likelihood
damage/confusion to be caused in the mind
of the public. Thus, it is established beyond
doubt that it is for the respondents to have
initiated
suitable
Civil
Injunction
Proceedings, if they had any apprehension
of misuse of the name of the respondent by
the subsequent society being registered.
The claim, if any, so pleaded would be
adjudged by the Civil Court, on the basis of
evidence led and the extent of damage/loss,
which may be caused. However, they
cannot be permitted to invoke the authority
of the Registrar himself to cancel the
registration.

23. In such circumstances, order
dated 28.08.2009 passed by the Deputy
Registrar, Firms Societies and Chits, U.P.
Faizabad as well as order dated 13.01.2010
passed by the Commissioner, Faizabad
Division, Faizabad, cannot be legally
sustained and are, hereby, quashed.

24.

The
writ
petition
is,
accordingly, allowed.
----------
(2024) 8 ILRA 1111
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 08.08.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, J.

Application U/s 482 No. 556 of 2014

Ram Bux & Ors. ...Applicants
Versus
The State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Vipin Kumar Mishra

Counsel for the Respondent:
G.A., Jitendra Bahadur Singh

Criminal
Law
-
Criminal
Procedure
Code,1973 -Section 473 - charge sheet filed
after more than three and a half (31⁄2) years
from the date of N.C.R.- the said charge sheet
ought to have been construed as a complaint
and the investigating officer to be a complainant
u/s
2(d)
of
Cr.P.C.,-therefore,
taking
a