https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109288 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. en-us Fri, 13 Aug 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 07 Apr 2012 14:45:36 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109288 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. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 13 Aug 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109288