Introducing the “In Favour Of” filter in Case Laws.
- ⚖️ Instantly identify judgments decided in favour of the Assessee, Revenue, or Appellant
- 🔍 Narrow down results with higher precision
Try it now in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New Feature Launched ✕
Just a moment...
Introducing the “In Favour Of” filter in Case Laws.
Try it now in Case Laws →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Highlights
of of All Highlights
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of HC upheld the RD's suo motu jurisdiction under Section 16(1)(a) of the Companies Act, 2013, holding that it extends beyond trademark infringement and may be exercised whenever a company's name is identical with, or too nearly resembles, that of an existing company. Applying the 'structural and phonetic resemblance' test, HC found the petitioner's and respondent no. 2's corporate names substantially identical, differing only in the first word, and therefore falling within the statutory embargo. HC held that the RD need not establish likelihood of deception or confusion, and that no perversity or jurisdictional error was shown. The impugned order directing change of name was sustained and the writ petition was dismissed.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
