Dna Forensics Test Solutions Private Limited vs Union Of India And Ors

$~4
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
% Date of decision: 24 July 2026

+ W.P.(C) 9684/2026 and CM APPL. 45118-45119/2026
DNA FORENSICS TEST SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED
.....Petitioner
Through: Mohd. Kashif, Mohd. Suza Faisal,
Advocates.

versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS .....Respondents
Through: Ms. Sarika Singh, SPC for
Respondent nos.1 & 2.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL
JUDGMENT

ANISH DAYAL, J (ORAL)
1. This petition has filed challenging order dated 08th June 2026, passed
by respondent no.2 [ Regional Director , Office of Regional Director ] under
Section 16(1)(a) of the Companies Act, 2013 [hereinafter, ‘ the Act ’],
whereby the petitioner/company [‘ DNA FORENSICS TEST SOLUTION
PRIVATE LIMITED ’] was directed to change its name, on the ground that it
was similar to and, resembled that of respondent no. 3/complainant
company, namely, ‘ DNA FORENSICS LABORATORY PRIVAYE LIMITED ’
[‘ impugned order ’].
Signature Not Verified

W.P.(C) 9684/2026 and CM APPL. 45118-45119/2026 1/8

Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:27.07.2026
15:55:03

2. Mr. Md. Kashif, counsel for petitioner/company, raises an issue of
jurisdiction and states that the trigger under Section 16(1)(a), is in
contradistinction to Section 16(1)(b) of the Act. Under section 16(1)(b) of
the Act, a direction can be issued on an ‘application’ made by registered
proprietor of a trademark; whereas under Section 16(1)(a), it has to be based
upon an ‘opinion’ of the Central Government. He states that since the
impugned order was triggered by an application moved by respondent no.
3/complainant company, the same cannot be entertained under Section
16(1)(a) of the Act.
3. Ms. Sarika Singh , Senior Panel Counsel appearing on behalf of
respondent nos. 1 & 2, sought time to take instructions and pursuant thereto,
states that an opinion under Section 16(1)(a) of the Act is routinely made on
the basis of applications which have been preferred by existing companies
that have a grievance, with respect to a similar or identical name of a newly
registered company.
4. Mr. Mohd. Kashif , counsel for petitioner/company, however,
contends that giving such an interpretation to Section 16 (1)(a) will make
Section 16 (1)(b) completely redundant. For this purpose, he has relied upon
the decision of High Court of Madras in M/S T.T. Ltd. v. Union of India &
Anr., W.P. No. 52/2022, where the Court has expressed their opinion in
paragraph nos.19 & 20 , which are extracted hereunder:
“ 19. Section 16 of the Companies Act, 2013 comprises
of two parts. The first part viz., Section 16 (1) (a) gives
the Central Government, the Suo motu power to direct
the Company to change its name based on its findings
that the name of the said Company is identical with or
Signature Not Verified

W.P.(C) 9684/2026 and CM APPL. 45118-45119/2026 2/8

Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:27.07.2026
15:55:03

too nearly resembles the name by which the Company in
existence had been previously registered. The second
part is on an application submitted by a registered
proprietor of a trade mark alleging that the name of the
other Company is identical with or too nearly resembles
a registered trade mark of such proprietor under the
Trade Marks Act, 1999.
20. The petitioner contends in these Writ Petitions that
even on an application, the second respondent can
exercise its power under Section 16 (1) (a) of the
Companies Act, 2013 which in the considered view of
this Court is incorrect. The reason being is that under
Section 16 (1) (a) of the Companies Act, 2013, it begins
with the phrase "in the opinion of the Central
Government" which is distinct from section 16(1)(b)
which power is exercised only on an application by the
Registered Proprietor of a Trade Mark. Therefore,
Section 16(1)(a) of the Act is a Suo-motu power vested
exclusively by the Central Government. When the
Registered Proprietor of a Trade Mark is empowered to
exercise its right seeking for rectification under section
16(1)(b), the intention of the legislature would never
have been to grant them dual rights under the very same
section of either exercising right under section 16(1)(a)
or under section 16(1)(b). The conjunction “or” is also
deliberately omitted between section 16(1)(a) and
16(1)(b) to make the distinction which makes it clear
that the intention of the legislature was not to grant
right to a registered Proprietor of a trade mark to
exercise its rights for rectification of the name both
under section 16(1)(a) and section 16(1)(b) of the
Companies Act, 2013. The power under section 16(1)(a)
is exclusively vested with the Central Government and is
a suo motu power. However, the said suo-motu power
can be exercised by the Central Government only after
its objective satisfaction. The applications filed by the
petitioner under section 16(1)(a) before the second
respondent being not maintainable, the second
Signature Not Verified

W.P.(C) 9684/2026 and CM APPL. 45118-45119/2026 3/8

Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:27.07.2026
15:55:03

respondent has rightly rejected the applications. Earlier
instances of the second respondent entertaining such
applications on behalf of the petitioner cannot be a
ground for this Court to accept the contention of the
petitioner that the applications filed by the petitioner
under section 16(1)(a) of the Act is maintainable.
Further the precedents of the second respondent's
orders under section 16(1)(a) are not binding on this
Court and also does not have any persuasive value as
the said precedents are not in accordance with law and
not rendered by constitutional courts. Erroneous orders
passed earlier by the second respondent under Section
16 (1) (a) of the Companies Act, 2013 which have been
placed on record before this Court as precedents by the
learned counsel for the petitioner is not in accordance
with the statute viz., Section 16 (1) (a) of the Companies
Act, 2013 and therefore, even by way of persuasion, the
said erroneous orders cannot be considered by this
Court and has to be rejected outright. None of the
decisions of the High Courts relied upon by the learned
counsel for the petitioner dealt with the maintainability
of an application under section 16(1)(a) of the Act and
therefore, they have no bearing to the facts of the instant
case. ”
(emphasis added)

5. On a careful perusal of the opinion of Madras High Court, it would
appear that such an observation has been made in context of the particular
facts and circumstances of the case. The issue which was canvassed was,
whether a rectification under Section 16 (1)(a) of the Act could be exercised
after a long passage of time and the Court in paragraph no.18 stated that
some bar of limitation ought to be there. The said paragraph is extracted as
under:
Signature Not Verified

W.P.(C) 9684/2026 and CM APPL. 45118-45119/2026 4/8

Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:27.07.2026
15:55:03

“ 18. The power to direct rectification under section
16(1)(a) is exclusively vested with the Central
Government and is a suo motu power. Even if the
Central Government decides to initiate suo motu
proceedings under section 16(1)(a) now, the said
proceedings will be hopelessly barred by limitation as
the said power would have been exercised not within a
reasonable time. Just because, there is no limitation
prescribed under section 16(1)(a), it cannot be
construed that there is no time limit. Under section
22(1) of the old Companies Act, 1956 twelve months
period was fixed for the exercise of suo motu action and
therefore, it can be conclusively held that even under
section 16(1)(a) of the new Companies Act, 2013 suo
motu power will have to be exercised by the Central
Government within a reasonable time. The respective
third respondent Company having been incorporated
long time back much prior to the coming into force of
the new Companies Act, 2013, the question of the
Central Government initiating its suo motu power under
section 16(1)(a) of the Companies Act, 2013 at this
stage will not arise and will be barred by limitation.
This Court is therefore, of the considered view that the
second respondent has rightly rejected the applications
filed by the petitioner on the ground of limitation. ”
(emphasis added)
6. It was in this context that the Madras High Court made the
observations in paragraph nos.19 & 20, as extracted above. Further, what
had prevailed with the Madras High Court, in the facts of that case, is that the
petitioner had failed in its attempt to get an order of injunction before the
Delhi High Court, during the pendency of disposal of the trademark suit and,
had therefore, filed an application under Section 16 (1)(a) of the Act. In this
regard, the Madras High Court noted as under:
Signature Not Verified

W.P.(C) 9684/2026 and CM APPL. 45118-45119/2026 5/8

Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:27.07.2026
15:55:03

“ 21. The petitioner having failed in its attempt to get an
order of injunction before the Delhi High Court,
pending disposal of the trademark suit against the third
respondent has filed the applications under Section 16
(1) (a) of the Companies Act, 2013. The respective third
respondent will be put to irreparable loss, if the
applications under section 16 of the Act is entertained
that too, when the petitioner has failed in its attempt to
get an order of injunction before the Delhi High Court
to restrain the respective third respondent company to
use the name by establishing prima facie case, balance
of convenience and by proving irreparable hardship.
The second respondent is certainly bound by the
findings and decision of the Delhi High Court and
therefore, has rightly rejected the applications under
the impugned orders on the ground of res-judicata. ”
(emphasis added)
7. Notwithstanding this, in the opinion of the Court, the order being
passed under Section 16(1)(a) of the Act, even though triggered by an
application, cannot be considered to be invalid or without jurisdiction, for
the simple reason that it was triggered on the basis of information given by
an applicant.
8. Under Section 16(1)(a) of the Act, decision is taken by the Central
Government if it opines, that the name of a newly registered company is
identical with or too nearly resembles the name of a company in existence
which had been previously registered, and therefore, it can direct the newly
registered company to change its name.
9. The contradistinction drawn out by counsel for petitioner with Section
16(1)(b) of the Act, which is triggered by an application made by a registered
Signature Not Verified

W.P.(C) 9684/2026 and CM APPL. 45118-45119/2026 6/8

Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:27.07.2026
15:55:03

proprietor of trademark, is not tenable. Section 16(1)(b) of the Act is
naturally triggered by an application, since the registered proprietor of a
trademark, who is aggrieved with an identical name being used by a newly
registered company, will necessarily apply for getting the name struck off.
However, Section 16 (1)(a) of the Act is a wider power, which allows the
Central Government to suo motu , on its own, direct rectification of a name,
in case, it is found to be identical or too similar.
10. It cannot be expected that for every newly registered company, there
will always be a situation, where the registering authority is able to trundle
through various names in order to check, whether they are identical with or
nearly resemble a previously registered name. Even assuming that threshold
has been overcome, the previously registered company can be naturally
aggrieved, if the names are too close, particularly, if the industry or areas that
they work in are almost similar, as in the present case.
11. In the present case, it has been admitted by counsel for petitioner that
the petitioner/company is working in exactly the same area as that of
respondent no.3/complainant company i.e. DNA testing. Therefore, the
similarity between DNA Forensics Test Solutions Pvt. Ltd. ( petitioner
company ) and DNA Forensics Laboratory Pvt. Ltd ( respondent no.
3/complainant company ) is too similar/almost identical, to ignore.
12. The Central Government cannot be precluded from formulating an
opinion and moving forward with a decision under Section 16(1)(a) of the
Act, only because it has been triggered by an application. That would be
Signature Not Verified

W.P.(C) 9684/2026 and CM APPL. 45118-45119/2026 7/8

Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:27.07.2026
15:55:03

curtailing and binding the hands down of the regulator to an extreme and
illogical extent.
13. Accordingly, petition is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, are
rendered infructuous.
14. Judgment be uploaded on the website of this Court.

ANISH DAYAL, J
JULY 24, 2026/ ak / sp

Signature Not Verified

W.P.(C) 9684/2026 and CM APPL. 45118-45119/2026 8/8

Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:27.07.2026
15:55:03