- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:4132 WP No. 15425 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 15425 OF 2017 (GM-KSR) BETWEEN: KANNADA FILM CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, NO.220, 3RD FLOOR, 6TH A CROSS, ANANDA RAO LAYOUT, GANDHINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 009. REPRESENTED BY JOINT SECRETARY, V.CHANDRASHEKAR. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. MEDINI RAO., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. DISTRICT REGISTRAR, FOURTH ZONE, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, 8TH FLOOR, KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD COMPLEX, CAUVERY BHAVAN, K.G.ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 009. 2. KARNATAKA FILM CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, #28, 1ST MAIN, CRESCENT ROAD, HIGH GROUNDS, BENGALURU - 560 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS HONORARY SECRETARY. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MAHANTESH SHETTAR., AGA FOR R1; SRI. SHANMUKHAPPA., ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS. Digitally signed by THEJASKUMAR N Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:4132 WP No. 15425 of 2017 THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER Ms.Medini Rao., counsel for the petitioner, AGA for respondent No.1 and Sri.Tejesh K.Reddy., counsel on behalf of Sri.Shanmukappa., for respondent No.2 have appeared in person. 2. The short facts are these: It is stated that the Kannada Film Chamber of Commerce - petitioner was registered with the first respondent in the name Karnataka Dubbing Film Chamber of Commerce in the year 2015. The first respondent accepted the amendment of the bye-law of the petitioner in regard to the name and it was registered in the new name as Kannada Film Chamber of Commerce. As the matter stood thus, the second respondent Karnataka Film Chamber of Commerce submitted an application before the first respondent to cancel the order dated 06.01.2017 i.e., the amendment pursuant to which the petitioner was registered in the new name 'Kannada Film Chamber of Commerce' on the ground that it is identical to its - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:4132 WP No. 15425 of 2017 name and created confusion in the mind of general public in particular film industry acting under Section 7 of the Act. The first respondent initiated proceedings on the aforesaid application and issued notice to the petitioner Society to appear on 10.02.2017. It is contended that the said notice was not served on the petitioner, but the office bearer of the petitioner visited the office of the first respondent and accepted the notice by hand after the hearing date on 10.02.2017. The second respondent filed statement before the first respondent. The petitioner appeared before the first respondent through its advocate and filed statement of objection against the application as well as statement filed by the second respondent. It is contended that on account of lawyer's strike, the petitioner did not appear and Joint Secretary appeared in person and submitted a memo along with photocopy of the reported judgment in ILR 2003 (3) KAR 2906 and requested for time, but the same was refused and the matter was posted for orders on 07.04.2017. The petitioner filed the written argument and the same was accepted by the first respondent. The first respondent vide order dated 07.04.2017 passed an order - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:4132 WP No. 15425 of 2017 canceling/ withdrawing the amendment of bye-law with regard to name. This order is called into question in this Writ Petition on several grounds as set-out in the memorandum of Writ Petition. 3. Counsel Ms.Medini Rao., in presenting her arguments strenuously urged that the first respondent has failed to appreciate that Section 7 of the Act does not confer a power on the District Registrar to review the order. She argued by saying that Section 7 of the Act provides that the Society is not to be registered with undesirable names. She vehemently contends that at the time of registration of society, if the Registrar is of the opinion that the name of the Society is undesirable as it resembles or identical with the name of the society which is in existence and has been previously registered, can refuse the registration of the society. Counsel placed reliance on the decision in SHIMOGA ZILLA MADIVALA SANGHA AND ANOTHER VS. THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR, FOR SOCIETIES & ASSOCIATIONS, SHIMOGA DISTRICT AND ANOTHER - ILR 2003 KAR 2906. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:4132 WP No. 15425 of 2017 AGA for respondent No.1 and counsel for respondent No.2 justified the action of the first respondent in canceling/ withdrawing the amendment of bye-law with regard to the name of the petitioner. They argued by saying that Section 7 bars registration of another society with an identical name. They placed reliance on the decision in BENGALURU URBAN ZILLA AMATEUR KABBADI ASSOCIATION (R) AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS - WP NO.17533/2021 C/W. 22023/2021 disposed of on 17.10.2022. They submit that an appropriate order may be passed. 4. Heard the arguments and perused the Writ papers with care. 5. The issue revolves around a narrow compass and relates to the registration of the Society with an identical name. Suffice it to note that the second respondent was registered as Karnataka Film Chamber of Commerce. Earlier the petitioner was registered as Karnataka Dubbing Film Chamber of Commerce. However, the same was amended as Kannada Film Chamber of Commerce. A careful glance of the names of the petitioner and the second respondent reflects that the amended - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:4132 WP No. 15425 of 2017 name of the petitioner is more or less identical/ resembles the name of the second respondent which was already in existence and was previously registered. A comparison reveals that they are not too similar but are virtually the same. The name of the petitioner Society nearly resembles the name of the second respondent. 6. The law is well settled that once a society is registered in a particular name, registration of a second society with an identical name is impermissible. A duty casts on the Registrar to verify whether the name is identical or resembles the name by which the society in existence has been previously registered. Taking note of the same, the District Registrar - first respondent is justified in canceling/ withdrawing the amendment of bye-law with regard to name of the petitioner. I find no grounds to interfere with the order passed by the District Registrar. The Writ Petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be rejected. 7. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is rejected. Sd/- (JYOTI MULIMANI) JUDGE TKN List No.: 3 Sl No.: 1