https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110597 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. en-us Wed, 02 Apr 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 17 Apr 2012 16:54:52 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110597 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. Case-Laws Companies Law Wed, 02 Apr 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110597