The use of a similar name by a company can be authorized if there is a family settlement and no objection from the existing company's directors.

JUDGMENT :

A.K. Sikri, J.—

1. The petitioner, which is a private limited company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act (for short the Act'), is aggrieved by incorporation of the respondent No. 4 company on the ground that the respondent No. 4 company is allowed to be incorporated with similar name as that of the petitioner. The name of the petitioner company is Hira Lal & Sons (Export) Pvt. Ltd. which was incorporated in the year 1973. The respondent No. 4 was allowed to be incorporated with the name of Hira Lal & Sons (I) Pvt. Ltd. in July, 2000 by the Registrar of Companies. The petitioner, in these circumstances, filed a representation u/s 22 of the Act to the Government of India against the incorporation of the respondent No. 4 company with the aforesaid name. This representation of the petitioner has been decided by impugned order dated 4th July, 2001. In this order passed by the Regional Director (NR), Kanpur it is accepted that the name of the respondent No. 4 is identical and too nearly resembles the name of the petitioner company and observations to this effect are as under:

"AND WHEREAS on the basis of comments/clarification furnished by the respondent company, the Central Government is of the opinion that M/s. Hira Lall & Son (I) Pvt. Ltd. has been inadvertently or otherwise incorporated and its name is identical and too nearly resembles to the name of the applicant company. It may cause misleading effects in the minds of general public and accordingly it has been decided that it is a fit case for issue of directions u/s 22 of the Companies Act, 1956."

2. The respondent No. 2, in order to remedy the situation, gave direction in the concluding para of the impugned order to the effect that the name of the respondent No. 4 company be changed suffixing ANUPAM' so as to read 'M/s Hira Lall & Son (I) Anupam Pvt. Ltd.', as would be clear from the following observations:

"Now, Therefore, in exercise of powers delegated to the undersigned u/s 22 of the Companies Act, 1956 vide Notification No. GSR No. 288 (E) dated 31.5.1991, I Regional Director (NR), Department of Company Affairs, Kanpur hereby direct M/s. Hira Lall & Son (I) Pvt. Ltd. having its registered office at H-4, Masjit Moth, New Delhi-110048 to change its name by suffixing 'ANUPAM' (which is the name of the Director of respondent company) to M/s Hira Lall & Son (I) Anupam Pvt. Ltd. or any other name which reflect the object of the respondent company within a period of 3 months from the date of issue of direction."

3. Present writ petition is filed against this order and it is the contention of the petitioner that once the respondent No. 2 accepted that name of the respondent No. 4 company too nearly resembles the name of the petitioner company, the respondent No. 2 should have directed the respondent No. 4 company to change its name a direction to add suffix 'Anupam', has not solved the problem as resemblance remains so long as 'M/s Hira Lal & Sons' is allowed in the name of the respondent No. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per Section 20 of the Act, a company which is identical with, or too nearly resembles the existing company, cannot be allowed to be incorporated with that name. He submitted that such similar name can be permitted only if there was no objection certificate given by the existing company, which was not given in the present case. In support of his submission, he relied upon the judgment of Calcutta High Court in the case of Kalpana Polytee India Ltd. and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., 2001 (106) Comp Cas 558. He also referred to another judgment of the Madras High Court in the case of Kilburn Electricals and Ors. v. Regional Director, Company Law Board and Ors., (2000) CriLJ 351.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents 5 and 6, on the other hand, submitted that the present writ petition was liable to be dismissed as the petitioner had not come to this Court with clean hands and had suppressed material facts. He drew att