Central Government’s power under Section 16(1)(a) extends to applications filed by aggrieved existing companies.

The Petitioner, ‘DNA Forensics Test Solutions Private Limited’, challenged an order dated June 8, 2026, issued by Respondent No. 2 (Regional Director) under Section 16(1)(a) of the Companies Act, 2013.

The impugned order directed the Petitioner to change its name as it was found to be nearly identical to Respondent No. 3, ‘DNA Forensics Laboratory Private Limited’.

Both companies operate in the same field of DNA testing.

The Petitioner argued that since the proceedings were triggered by a complaint from Respondent No. 3 rather than being initiated suo motu by the government, the order lacked jurisdiction under Section 16(1)(a).

1. Whether a direction for rectification of a company name under Section 16(1)(a) is invalid if it is triggered by an application from a third party rather than being initiated suo motu by the Central Government.

2. Whether the similarity between the names ‘DNA Forensics Test Solutions Private Limited’ and ‘DNA Forensics Laboratory Private Limited’ warrants a mandatory name change under the Act.

Section 16(1)(a) empowers the Central Government to direct a name change if, in its "opinion," the name is identical to or too nearly resembles a previously registered company name.

Section 16(1)(b) provides a specific mechanism for registered trademark proprietors to apply for rectification.

The source of information does not restrict the Government’s statutory power to form an opinion.

The Court rejected the Petitioner's narrow interpretation that Section 16(1)(a) is strictly limited to suo motu actions, reasoning that Section 16(1)(a) represents a "wider power" compared to 16(1)(b).

The Court noted that it is practically impossible for the registering authority to monitor all existing names without external information; therefore, a complaint serves as a valid "trigger" for the Government to formulate its opinion.

Regarding the facts, the Court found that because both companies operate in the "exactly same area" (DNA testing), the names were "too similar/almost identical to ignore," thus satisfying the criteria for rectification.

The Court distinguished the T.T. Ltd. case on the basis that it involved issues of limitation and prior failed litigation, which were not present here.

The Court held that the names were deceptively similar and the Central Government acted within its regulatory mandate to direct the name change.

All pending applications were disposed of as infructuous.