Mandatory interim directions for corporate name rectification stayed pending final adjudication of interlocutory injunction applications.

The Appellants challenged a direction issued by a learned Single Judge in paragraph 9 of an order dated 25.08.2025

The Single Judge had directed the Defendants (Appellants herein) to cease using the domain name ‘www.ultraconindia.com’ and ordered Defendant No. 5 to cease using "Ultracon Structural Systems Private Limited" as its corporate name, requiring amendments to Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) records within two weeks

The Appellants contended that they had a right to use their logo despite the expiration of their contract and had filed several pending applications, including a Section 11 application under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and applications under Order VII Rules 10 and 11, and Order XXXIX Rule 4 of the CPC

In FAO 51/2026, the Appellant argued that the Single Judge granted mandatory relief (rectification of MCA records) in a contempt application under Order XXXIX Rule 2A without having first decided the main injunction application or previously restraining the use of the trade name

1. Whether the mandatory direction to amend corporate names in MCA records could be enforced while applications challenging the suit's maintainability and the interim injunction were still pending?

2. Whether the Appellants could be required to file compliance affidavits regarding the cessation of domain use without such filing being construed as an admission of the Respondent's claims?

The Court's proceedings were governed by Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC regarding interim injunctions and Order XXXIX Rule 2A concerning the breach of such injunctions

The Court also referenced Sections 8 and 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, regarding the impact of arbitration clauses on civil suits

Procedural principles under Order VII Rules 10 and 11 of the CPC (return and rejection of plaint) were also central to the Appellants' challenge against the Single Judge's immediate directions

The Division Bench evaluated the procedural fairness of enforcing a mandatory injunction (changing a corporate name) before the Single Judge had adjudicated on the merits of the injunction or the maintainability of the suit.

Regarding FAO 52/2026, the Court clarified that compliance affidavits filed by the Appellants would be "without prejudice" to their rights and contentions, ensuring that procedural compliance did not waive their legal defense regarding the logo

Regarding FAO 51/2026, the Court noted that a mandatory change in MCA records could lead to complications if the primary injunction application (Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2) was eventually dismissed

To resolve this, the Court leveraged a concession from the Respondent, who agreed not to precipitate or seek implementation of the name-change order until the Single Judge decided the pending applications under Order I Rule 10, Order VII Rule 11, and Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2

It ordered that pleadings in those applications be completed by 04.04.2026

The Court held that the mandatory direction to change the corporate name in MCA records shall not be implemented or precipitated by the Respondent until the Single Judge decides the underlying applications regarding the injunction and suit maintainability

Compliance affidavits filed by the Appellants are to be treated as being without prejudice to their rights