https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=459476 The HC dismissed the writ petition, affirming the order for the petitioner to change its name under Section 22(1)(b) of the Companies Act, 1956. The court found that the petitioner's name was too similar to an existing company, resulting in potential confusion. It determined that the Registrar's approval was due to inadvertence and that a 'No Objection Certificate' was fraudulently issued by a former director without proper authorization. The court emphasized the independent nature of Section 22 proceedings and civil suits, allowing both to proceed concurrently. The decision reinforced statutory provisions against registering similar company names. en-us Mon, 03 Sep 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 16 Dec 2024 18:31:29 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=459476 The HC dismissed the writ petition, affirming the order for the petitioner to change its name under Section 22(1)(b) of the Companies Act, 1956. The court found that the petitioner's name was too similar to an existing company, resulting in potential confusion. It determined that the Registrar's approval was due to inadvertence and that a 'No Objection Certificate' was fraudulently issued by a former director without proper authorization. The court emphasized the independent nature of Section 22 proceedings and civil suits, allowing both to proceed concurrently. The decision reinforced statutory provisions against registering similar company names. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 03 Sep 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=459476