JUDGMENT

Manjari Nehru Kaul, J. - In this intra Court appeal filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent, the appellant-Company assails the order dated 22.12.2014 vide which the learned Single Judge set aside the order dated 28.05.2013, Annexure P.8 passed by Regional Director, Northern Region, Ministry of Corporate Affairs-respondent No. 2 rejecting the application filed by respondent No.l under Section 22 of the Companies Act, 1956 (in short, "the Companies Act") and directed the appellant to rectify the name of the company by dropping the name "Mindtree" and also imposed costs in the amount of ?25,000/-.

2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge as well as the order passed by respondent No.2.

3. The controversy that needs to be addressed is whether the corporate name of the respondent-company i.e. Mindtree Limited is similar to or nearly resembles the appellant's trademark or its corporate name so as to deceive or cause confusion in the mind of a user.

4. Brief facts of the case, which are relevant for deciding the controversy are that the appellant-company is engaged in imparting education since the yea