$~45 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 649/2026, CM APPL. 3156/2026 & CM APPL. 3157/2026 YARA GREEN ENERGY PRIVATE LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Shayan Khurram, Mr. Sanjit Singh, Advocates.

versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr.Shashank Bajpai, CGSC , Mr.

Sambhav Sharma, G.P for R-1.

Mr. Nitin Sharma, Advocate with Ms.

Subhoshree Siri, Advocates for R-3.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL

O R D E R

% 16.01.2026

1. This petition seeks to assails the impugned award dated 30^th September 2025 passed by respondent no.2, Regional Director (Northern Region) Ministry of Corporate Affairs, who has allowed an application filed under Section 16 (1) (b), Companies Act, 2013 (‘Companies Act’), by respondent no.3/Yara Fertilizers India Pvt Ltd.

2. For the purposes of reference, the provision of Section 16(1)(b) of Companies Act, 2013 is extracted as under:

“….(b) on an application by a registered proprietor of a trade mark that the name is identical with or too nearly resembles to a registered trade mark of such proprietor under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, made to the Central Government within three years of incorporation or registration or change of name of the company, whether under this Act or any previous company law, in the opinion of the Central Government, is identical with or too nearly resembles to an existing trade mark, it may direct the company to change its name and the company shall change its name or new name, as the case may be, within a period of six months from the issue of such direction, after adopting an ordinary resolution for the purpose….”

3. By the said application, respondent no.3 has prayed that petitioner i.e. Yara Green Energy Pvt. Ltd., that been incorporated with a name which nearly resembled the corporate name of respondent no.3 who is also registered owner of trademark ‘Yara’ under class 1,13,44 and 42 both as wordmark as well as device.

4. Mr. Shayan Khurram, counsel for petitioner contends that while his contentions were recorded in the impugned order, they were not dealt with by the Regional Director (Northern Region) in the impugned order.

5. Counsel for respondent no.3 however, contends that the assessment is limited to what is the scope and purview of Section 16 (1) (b) of the Companies Act and this issue is also been dealt with by this Court in CGMP Pharmaplan Pvt. Ltd v Regional Director, Ministry of Corporate Affairs and Anr., 2010:DHC:3504, relying upon paragraph 17, which is extracted as under:

“17. The decision in Montari Overseas Limited makes it clear that a civil court exercising its powers in terms of the CPC and determining in a passing-off action if one name is confusingly deceptive or similar to another name, is exercising a jurisdiction independent of the jurisdiction of Respondent No. 1 in respect of the registering of a company‟s name. The latter is a power vested in the central government in terms of Sections 20 and 22 of the Act. While it is true that the Respondent No. 1 cannot approach the case as it would in a trade mark dispute, it is nevertheless required to come to the conclusion whether the name of which the registration is sought or has been granted too nearly resembles the name of another company. Mr. Chandra is right in his contention that the powers of the central government under Section 22 of the Act are wider inasmuch as there is no need to examine whether there is a likelihood of deception or confusion. It is enough to examine if the name registered too nearly resembles another registered name. The Respondent no. 2 has been able to show that both names too nearly resemble each other.”

6. On this basis, he states that there was nothing for the Regional Director to examine while determining the application.

7. Counsel appears for respondent no.2, Regional Director, Ministry of Corporate Affairs as well, he also takes the position that the order is reasoned, and it does record the contention of the parties and has been considered.

8. Having