1. The Petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 21st April 2010 passed by the Regional Director (NR), Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Government of India, Respondent No. 1 herein allowing the representation filed by Respondent No. 2 NNE Pharmaplan India Private Limited under Section 22 of the Companies Act 1956 ("Act?) and directing the Petitioner under Section 22 (1) (b) of the Act to delete the word "PHARMAPLAN" from its existing name and change its name to some other name within three months from the date of the said order.

2. Respondent No. 2 NNE Pharmaplan India Private Limited was incorporated initially on 30th December 1997 under the name Pharmaplan (India) Limited. The present Director of the Petitioner Mr. Ravi Saxena joined the Respondent No. 2 company on 5th June 1998. It may be mentioned that the main business of the Respondent No. 2 company was to provide services as technical and industrial consultants and engineers especially to planning, consulting, engineering, plant and equipment supply, pharmaceutical, bio-technology, medical device/products and the health care industries. Respondent No. 2 was also to act as advisers and consultants on all matters and problems connected with or related to pharmaceutical, bio-technology, medical device/product and the health care industries.

3. On 27th June 2008, the name of the Respondent No. 2 was changed to NNE Pharmaplan India Limited.

4. The employment of Mr. Ravi Saxena in the Respondent No. 2 company stood terminated with effect from 11th May 2009. Within two months thereafter on 6th July 2009, the Petitioner was incorporated as a private limited company with the name cGMP Pharmaplan Private Limited.

5. On 17th July 2009, the Respondent No. 2 filed a Civil Suit No. 1307 of 2009 in this Court seeking, inter alia, an injunction to restrain the Petitioner herein (Defendant No. 1 in the above suit) from passing-off the name of the Respondent No. 2 Company as its own. Simultaneously the Respondent No. 2 also filed a representation before the Regional Director on 27th July 2009 under Section 22 of the Act seeking a direction that the Petitioner should change its name.

6. While disposing of the application filed by the Respondent No. 2 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1909 ("CPC?) in CS (OS) No. 1307 of 2009, a learned Single Judge of this Court by an order dated 18th December 2010 came to the conclusion that there was no prima facie case made out in favour of the Plaintiff/Respondent No. 2 since "the names of the Plaintiff and the Defendant company are in no manner similar; emphasis is essentially on the prefixed words "NNE? of the Plaintiff and "CGMP? of the Defendant. They are not only worded differently, the manner and the nature of the composition of alphabets is also distinct; they are not likely to cause confusion or deception in the minds of the proposed customers to whom the Defendant is offering its services."

7. It is stated that the Respondent No. 2 had filed an appeal against the said order which is pending before a Division Bench of this Court. No stay of the operation of the said order has been granted by the Division Bench.

8. In the meanwhile, the hearing in the application filed by the Respondent No. 2 before the Respondent No. 1 proceeded on 18th January 2010. The written submissions were also filed at the conclusion of the hearing.

9. In the impugned order dated 21st April 2010, the Respondent No. 1 observed that the holding company as well as group companies of NNE Pharmaplan India Private Limited already held registration in respect of the trade marks PHARMAPLAN? and NNE Pharmaplan? and filed application for the registration of these marks world over. It was concluded that the use by the Petitioner of the word PHARMAPLAN? in its name would have a misleading effect in the mind of the general public and as such it was a fit case for issue of direction under Section 22 (1)(b) of the Act. A direction was accordingly issued t