* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LPA 27/2026, CAV 24/2026, CM APPL. 3619/2026, CM APPL. 3620/2026, CM APPL. 3621/2026 & CM APPL.

3622/2026 ORIENT CABLES (INDIA) LIMITED .....Appellant Through: Mr. Chander M. Lall, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Kapil Wadhwa, Mr. Raghav Wadhwa, Mr. Anish Jandial, Mr. Amitoj Chaddha and Ms. Annanya Mehan, Advs.

versus OFFICE OF THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR NORTHERN REGION MINISTRY OF CORPORATE AFFAIRS & ORS. & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Gaurav Bharathi, SPC with Mr. Debasish Mishra, GP for R-1 Mr. Abhishek Malhotra, Sr. Adv. with Mr.

Angad Singh Dugal, Mr. Govind Singh Grewal, Ms. Srishti Gupta, Ms. Kanishka Singh, Mr. Kartikey Dutta and Ms. Anukriti Dutta, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA JUDGMENT (ORAL)

% 03.02.2026 C.HARI SHANKAR, J.

1. According to us, this LPA is completely unnecessary.

2. Respondent 3 filed an application under Section 16(1)(b), $~18 of the

116. Rectificationofnameofcompany.–

(1) If, through inadvertence or otherwise, a company on its first registration or on its registrationbyanewname,isregisteredbyanamewhich,—

Companies Act, 2013, before the Registrar of Companies, for directing the appellant to change its name on the ground that the corporate name of the appellant was identical to or closely resembling the trademark of Respondent 3. The Regional Director, in the office of the ROC, is presently in seisin thereof.

3. The appellant filed a reply before the Registrar, in which it took the stand that Section 16(1)(b) application of Respondent 3 was barred by time. It was also sought to be contended that, during oral proceedings, the appellant was told that the Registrar would proceed under Article 16(1)(a) of the Companies Act.

4. The learned Single Judge has noted the fact that the Registrar of Companies had, before her, clearly stated that the officer would not proceed under Section 16(1)(a) and that, in order to proceed under the said provision, prior notice was required to be issued to the appellant, which had not been issued.

5. As such, there is no dispute about the fact that the proceedings before the Regional Director are under Section 16(1)(b) of the Companies Act.

6. The appellant, as the petitioner before the learned Single Judge, (b) on an application by a registered proprietor of a trade mark that the name is identicalwithortoonearlyresemblestoaregisteredtrademarkofsuchproprietorunder theTrade Marks Act, 1999 (47 of 1999), made to the Central Government within three yearsof incorporationor registrationorchangeofnameofthecompany,whetherunder 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 companytochangeitsnameandthecompanyshallchangeitsnameornewname,asthe case may be, within aperiod of three months from the issue of such direction, after adoptinganordinaryresolutionforthepurpose.

sought quashing of the proceedings on the ground that they were time barred. The case of the appellant was that the time envisaged in Section 16(1)(b) was to reckon from the date of initial incorporation of the company and not from the date on which it was changed to a public limited company.

7. In any event, this objection has specifically been ventilated by the appellant before the concerned officer in writing. The learned Single Judge has been eminently fair to the appellant and has, instead of dismissing the writ petition as premature, directed the adjudicating officer to consider the appellant’s prayer for arguments on limitation and while considering the merits of the matter and has further directed that the order, if adverse to the appellant on the aspect of limitation, would remain in abeyance for a period of one week in order to enable the appellant to seek remedies thereagainst, if so advised.

8. We do not see how the appellant could expect anything more from the learned Single Judge.

9. No case for interference with the impug