Court dismisses writ petition challenging company name similarity, cites Companies Act Section 20.

The court dismissed the writ petition challenging the incorporation of respondent No. 4-company with a similar name to the petitioner. The Regional Director directed a name change for respondent No. 4 to address the resemblance. The court analyzed the Companies Act's Section 20 on undesirable names and considered family history and business activities. The court found no merit in the petitioner's claims, emphasizing familial connections and awarded costs against the petitioner.

---

---

Issues:
1. Incorporation of respondent No. 4-company with a name similar to that of the petitioner.
2. Interpretation of Section 20 of the Companies Act regarding undesirable names.
3. Dispute over the use of the name "Hira Lal and Sons" by respondent No. 4-company.
4. Consideration of family history and family settlement in the naming dispute.
5. Analysis of the no objection certificate provided by the director of the petitioner-company.
6. Comparison of business activities between the petitioner-company and respondent No. 4.
7. Examination of legal judgments cited in support of the arguments presented.

Issue 1:
The petitioner, a private limited company, challenged the incorporation of respondent No. 4-company due to its similar name. The Regional Director accepted the resemblance and directed a name change to "M/s. Hira Lal and Son (I) Anupam Pvt. Ltd." to address the issue.

Issue 2:
Section 20 of the Companies Act prohibits registration of companies with undesirable names, including those identical or closely resembling existing company names. The court analyzed this provision to determine the legality of the name "Hira Lal and Sons (I) Pvt. Ltd."

Issue 3:
The petitioner argued that the addition of "Anupam" as a suffix did not resolve the naming issue, insisting on a complete name change for respondent No. 4-company. The court evaluated whether the modified name sufficiently distinguished it from the petitioner.

Issue 4:
The court considered the family history and a purported family settlement leading to the incorporation of respondent No. 4, highlighting the shared lineage and business origins between the parties involved.

Issue 5:
The no objection certificate provided by the director of the petitioner-company was scrutinized to ascertain consent for the use of the family name "Hira Lal" by respondent No. 4, even though issued after the incorporation.

Issue 6:
Differences in business activities between the petitioner (export of garments) and respondent No. 4 (manufacture/trading/exports of home textiles) were examined to assess the potential for confusion or competition between the companies.

Issue 7:
Legal judgments, including the Calcutta High Court's decision in Kalpana Polytec India Ltd. v. Union of India and the Madras High Court's ruling in Kilburn Electricals Ltd. v. Regional Director, Company Law Board, were analyzed in the context of the naming dispute to determine their applicability and impact on the current case.

Ultimately, the court dismissed the writ petition, emphasizing the familial connections and the lack of merit in the petitioner's claims, with costs awarded against the petitioner.

---