Mandatory interim directions for corporate name change deferred pending final adjudication of injunction applications.

These appeals were preferred against an order passed by a learned Single Judge in I.A. 20676/2025 in CS (COMM) 661/2024

By the impugned direction dated 25.08.2025, the Single Judge ordered the Defendants to cease using the domain name 'www.ultraconindia.com' and further directed Defendant No. 5 to cease using 'Ultracon Structural Systems Private Limited' as its corporate name, including making requisite amendments on the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) website within two weeks

The Appellants argued that the direction regarding the corporate name was issued in an application under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC without deciding the underlying injunction application under Rules 1 and 2

They further noted that several applications under Order VII Rule 11 CPC and Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act were pending before the Single Judge

1. Whether a mandatory direction to rectify a corporate name in MCA records can be enforced while applications under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 and Order VII Rule 11 CPC are pending adjudication

2. Whether an affidavit of compliance regarding an injunction order can be filed by a party without prejudice to its legal rights and contentions regarding the use of an impugned logo

The Court considered the procedural application of Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908, relating to temporary injunctions, and Order XXXIX Rule 2A, which addresses the consequences of disobedience of such orders

It also took cognizance of the interplay between civil suits and arbitration under Section 8 and Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

The principle of "without prejudice" submissions was applied to allow a party to comply with court directions without waiving their substantive legal rights

The Court focused on balancing the enforcement of interim orders with the Appellants' right to have their jurisdictional and substantive challenges heard.

Regarding the domain name usage in FAO(OS) (COMM) 52/2026, the Court noted that the Appellants were complying with the injunction but sought to ensure that such compliance did not prejudice their claim to the logo; the Court found this reasonable and allowed the filing of an affidavit "without prejudice"

Regarding the corporate name change in FAO(OS) (COMM) 51/2026, the Court analyzed the Appellant’s grievance that implementing a corporate name change in MCA records would be premature before the Single Judge decided the primary injunction application or the challenges to the suit's maintainability

The Court avoided a merits-based determination by recording the Respondent's undertaking not to seek the implementation of the name change until the pending applications (Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2, Order I Rule 10, and Order VII Rule 11) were resolved

In FAO(OS) (COMM) 52/2026, the Court held that the Appellants could file their compliance affidavit regarding the domain name without prejudice to their rights and contentions

In FAO(OS) (COMM) 51/2026, the Court took on record the Respondent's statement that they would not precipitate or seek implementation of the order to change the corporate name in the MCA records until the Single Judge decides the applications under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2, Order I Rule 10, and Order VII Rule 11

The parties were directed to complete pleadings by 04.04.2026