Non-Registered Juristic Entities / Individuals Cannot Use the Title ‘Architect’ In Their Names but Can Render Architectural Services: Delhi HC [Read Judgment]

In Sudhir Vohra vs. Registrar of Companies & Ors. the Delhi High Court held that non-registered juristic entities cannot use the style and title of ‘architect in their name. The Court further held that unregistered persons, including juristic entities, could render architectural services or mention the same as one of their objectives in their Memorandum of Association (MOA) as there is no express prohibition in the Architects Act, 1972.

The Petitioner is registered architect under the Architects Act, 1972. He had approached the Writ Court to pray for the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the Registrar of Companies and Ministry of Corporate Affairs to not to entertain registration applications from any company or Limited Liability Partnership (LLP) which in its MOA states architectural services as one of its objectives.

The Counsel for the Petitioner argued that Section 23 & Section 25 which provides for method of preparing and maintaining the register of names of the architects and which provides for the qualifications to have one’s name registered doesn’t extend its scope to include juristic entities. He contended that the Act only applies to natural persons registered with the Council of Architects (COA) and not to juristic entities. He argued that unregistered persons, including juristic entities are prohibited from using the title/style of ‘architect’ or its derivatives or using the same in their name. In this regard, he relies on Section 37 of the Act, which categorically prohibits any person other than a registered architect from using the title and style of ‘architect’ as also Section 36, which provides for a penalty in case of a violation of Section 37. His contention, thus, is that only architects, being natural persons registered under the Act, have the exclusive privilege to use the title/style of „architect‟ or its derivatives.

The Counsel for the Respondents while agreeing with the submission that the Act only applies to natural persons registered with the COA, he contended that the non-applicability of the Act to unregistered persons, including juristic entities, cannot be read to preclude such persons from rendering architectural services. According to him Section 37 of the Act only protects the title and style of ‘architect’ and not its derivatives. He further submitted that the non-applicability of the Act does not render such companies/LLPs unaccountable for the services provided by them, or in any way unfairly disadvantage individual architects.

The bench comprising of Justice Rekha Palli found that the Architects Act neither prescribes that only registered architects can provide architectural services, nor contains any clause prohibiting companies and LLPs from providing architectural services. The judge observed that the Act clearly prohibits unregistered persons from using the title or style of ‘architect’ in their name but doesn’t prohibit rendering of architectural services.

“Merely because the Act includes a specific provision prescribing that only a registered architect can use the title of an ‘architect’ or style himself/herself as an “architect‟, it cannot be concluded that the Act in any manner envisages that architectural services can be rendered only by those to whom the Act applies. In the absence of any provision in the Act prohibiting unregistered natural persons or juristic entities from rendering architectural services, I am not inclined to accept the aforementioned contention that the provision of architectural services is the exclusive privilege of natural persons registered as architects under the Act.” observed the Judge.