https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=96748 A High Court found that respondent No.3 was fraudulently incorporated with a name strikingly similar to the petitioner corporate debtor, breaching the prohibition on similar names (Section 4(2)(a)) and Rule 8; the court held the difference of a single letter and shared addresses, domain use and replicated letterhead demonstrated bad faith, and cancelled respondent No.3's registration. The court directed respondent No.4 (bank) to remit the account balance of the fraudulently incorporated entity to the petitioner's liquidation account. Directions for inquiry, penalties and compensation against respondent No.1 were reserved with liberty to file additional affidavits. en-us Tue, 10 Feb 2026 07:46:24 +0530 Tue, 10 Feb 2026 07:46:26 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=96748 A High Court found that respondent No.3 was fraudulently incorporated with a name strikingly similar to the petitioner corporate debtor, breaching the prohibition on similar names (Section 4(2)(a)) and Rule 8; the court held the difference of a single letter and shared addresses, domain use and replicated letterhead demonstrated bad faith, and cancelled respondent No.3's registration. The court directed respondent No.4 (bank) to remit the account balance of the fraudulently incorporated entity to the petitioner's liquidation account. Directions for inquiry, penalties and compensation against respondent No.1 were reserved with liberty to file additional affidavits. Highlights Companies Law Tue, 10 Feb 2026 07:46:24 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=96748