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.
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.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4819 
Join Channel 
