Hercules Automobiles … vs The District Collector on 15 June, 2010

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 10137 of 2010(N)


1. HERCULES AUTOMOBILES INTERNATIONAL
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA.
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE TAHSILDAR, AMBALAPPUZHA,

3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.ANAND (A.201)

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN

 Dated :15/06/2010

 O R D E R
                                 S. Siri Jagan, J.
                 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
                         W.P(C) No. 10137 of 2010
                 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
                 Dated this, the 15th day of June, 2010.

                                J U D G M E N T

The petitioner is a Company registered under the Companies

Act, whose original name was New Maruthi Cars Pvt. Ltd. After

complying with the procedural formalities prescribed by the

Companies Act, the name was duly changed and a fresh certificate of

incorporation incorporating the change of name was issued by the

Registrar of Companies on 13-2-2006. The petitioner-Company had,

in its original name, purchased certain properties. After the change

of name, the petitioner applied for mutation of the properties in the

name of the Company, which was refused on the ground that there is

no further document to show that properties have been transferred in

the name of the petitioner as it presently stands. According to the

petitioner, this stand of the 2nd respondent is legally incorrect in view

of Section 23 of the Companies Act. Ext. P5 letter was issued to this

effect, despite which the 2nd respondent is not taking steps to effect

mutation of the properties in the name of the Company, is the

contention raised by the petitioner. The petitioner therefore seeks the

following reliefs:

“(a) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ,
order or direction, directing the 3rd respondent to effect change of
name of the Company pursuant to Ext. P1 in the revenue records
in respect of properties purchased vide Ext. P2, P3 and P4.

(b) To declare that by virtue of the provisions contained in
Section 23 of the Companies Act, the petitioner is entitled to get
the name changes in the revenue records in favour of the
petitioner.”

2. On 17-5-2010, I passed the following order:

“The petitioner has purchased certain properties by Exts.P2 to P4
assignment deeds. Subsequent to the same, the name of the

W.P.C. No. 10137/2010 -: 2 :-

petitioner has been changed and fresh registration certificate in
the new name has been issued as evidenced by Ext. P1. But the
property still stands in the nae of the original vendor in the
revenue records. The petitioner submits that despite an
application made in that regard as evidenced by Ext. P6, the 2nd
respondent is not taking steps for effecting mutation of the
properties in the name of the petitioner.

The learned Government Pleader shall get instructions as
to why Ext. P6 has not been attended to.”

3. Today, the learned Government Pleader submits that in view

of Exts.P1 and P5, mutation can be effected and the same can be

done within one month.

In the above circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of with

a direction to the 2nd respondent to effect mutation of the properties of

the petitioner in the present name of the Company as expeditiously as

possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a

copy of this judgment.

The petitioner shall produce for perusal of the 2nd respondent,

the original of Ext. P1, which shall be returned to the petitioner after

comparing the same with the copy produced by the petitioner.

Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge.

Tds/

[TRUE COPY]

P.S TO JUDGE.