The court upheld the validity of the order under Section 22 of the Companies Act, emphasizing the phonetic resemblance between the names 'Lloyd' and 'Lords' and the exact similarity of all other words in the name of both companies.

Invoking writ jurisdiction of this Court, the petitioner sought for a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the first respondent dated 15.09.2003 as confirmed by review order dated 19.2004 directing the petitioner's company to delete the words "Lords" from its existing name and change to some other name/prefix.

2. Affidavit in support of this writ petition and counter affidavit are perused. Heard the learned counsel for either side.

3. Learned counsel while advancing his argument on behalf of the petitioner would submit that the petitioner company was incorporated under Companies Act on 10.03.2003 under No.CIN U74210TN2003PTC050487. Certificate of incorporation was also issued to the petitioner's company. That eversince the petitioner's company was incorporated with the main objects as Engineers and contractors specialised in the field of Thermal, Hydro and acoustic insulation and suppliers of all insulation, ancillary materials, among other objects registered its name as Lords Insulations India Private Limited. Within a short period, the petitioner's company while was in its progress, the second respondent out of business rivalry and jealous moved an application before the first respondent for directions to the petitioner to change the name of the petitioner on the allegation that the name of the petitioner company is causing confusion with their customers alleging that the petitioner's name resembles the second respondent's name. After giving an opportunity of being heard, the first respondent by an order dated 15.09.2003 directed the petitioner to delete the word "Lords" and change to some other name/prefix within three months therefrom. A representation was also made by the petitioner on 5.11.2003, which was also rejected. Under such circumstances, there arose the filing of the instant writ petition. Added further, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the order of the first respondent cannot be sustained for the reason that it is inconsistent with the requirements of what is needed under Section 22 of the Companies Act.

4. The review petition filed by the petitioner has also not been considered properly. The first respondent before passing the order under Section 22 of the Companies Act with object mind, should have arrived at the conclusion that the name of the petitioner's company too nearly resembles the name of the second respondent company and then only can proceed with issuing directions to the petitioner company to change the name. Before taking such conclusion that two names resembles too closely, the authorities should have seen the nature of the business, nature of the customers and the possibility of confusion between the two names. It is pertinent to point out that the customers in this specific industry is highly qualified and they make orders for the service only after thorough evaluation of the offers, after taking into account the commercial capabilities by inviting offers from several operators in the field. The customers cannot be mislead by any resemblance in the names alone. The selection and ultimate placing of the orders for each order depends upon the personal satisfaction of the customer relating to the capacity to execute the order to the satisfaction of the customers, quality of service and other parameters and standards in the industry. All these factors have not been considered by the authority, namely, the first respondent. That it is not even the case of the second respondent that the name of the petitioner's company is too nearly resembles the name of the second respondent company within the meaning of Section 22 of the Companies Act 1956.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner took the Court to Section 22 of the Companies Act and also the guidelines brought forth under the same and thus the first respondent has not made out any case for rectification of the name under Section 22 of the Companies Act and hence the order of the first respondent is got to be