Court orders company name change due to similarity, emphasizing need for distinct names under Companies Act.

The Court upheld the first respondent's order directing a company to change its name due to similarity with another company's name under section 22 of the Companies Act. Despite arguments that customers in the industry would not be misled by name resemblance alone and that the review petition was not properly considered, the Court found the phonetic resemblance between the names significant. Emphasizing the requirement for names to be either identical or too similar for an order under section 22, the Court dismissed the writ petition but granted the petitioner two months for rectification as per the order.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to order directing name change based on similarity with another company's name under section 22 of the Companies Act.

Analysis:
The petitioner sought a writ of certiorari to quash the order directing the company to change its name due to similarity with the second respondent's name. The petitioner argued that the order is inconsistent with the requirements of section 22 of the Companies Act. The petitioner contended that customers in the industry are highly qualified and would not be misled by name resemblance alone. The petitioner emphasized that the authority did not consider factors like nature of business, customers, and potential confusion between names before issuing the direction.

The review petition filed by the petitioner was also not considered properly. The petitioner argued that the first respondent should have determined that the names too nearly resembled each other before directing the name change. The petitioner highlighted that the second respondent did not claim that the names were too similar within the meaning of section 22 of the Companies Act. The petitioner's counsel referred to section 22 and its guidelines, asserting that the first respondent failed to establish a case for name rectification under the Act.

The first respondent, represented by the Regional Director, defended the order, stating it was based on factual and legal considerations. The second respondent argued that the names "Lloyd" and "Lords" had phonetic resemblance, and the companies' names were otherwise identical. The second respondent contended that the first respondent considered representations from both parties and concluded that the name change was necessary to avoid confusion.

The Court, after considering submissions and evidence, found no merit in the writ petition. It noted that while the companies' names were mostly identical, the phonetic resemblance between "Lloyd" and "Lords" was significant. The Court emphasized that for an order under section 22, names should be either identical or too similar, which was the case here. Therefore, the Court upheld the first respondent's order, dismissing the writ petition but granting the petitioner two months for rectification as per the order.

---