9911796707
TMI Blog1972 (2) TMI 59X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the cause title of the memorandum of appeal being F.M.A.T. No. 2684 of 1970 and the body of the writ petition as well as the body of memorandum of appeal, be amended and that the name of the petitioner in the application be substituted for the name of the original petitioner, with liberty to continue or proceed or pursue the writ petition and the appeal preferred from the judgment dated July 3, 1970, and that the records and proceedings of the writ petition and the appeal be amended accordingly. There are also certain other prayers for consequential orders. The petition in support of this application is by Malhati Tea and Industries Ltd. (formerly known as Malihati Tea Syndicate Ltd.). In this petition, it is stated that on January 9, 1968 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the approval of the Central Government under section 21 of the Companies Act, 1956, the name of the company should be changed from Malhati Tea Syndicate Ltd. to Malhati Tea and Industries Ltd. It appears from annexure "B" to the petition that the Registrar of Joint Stock Companies issued a certificate on May 3, 1968, that the name of the company be changed from Malhati Tea Syndicate Ltd. to Malhati Tea and Industries Ltd. It is stated in this certificate that the approval of the Central Government has been accorded to this change. It is therefore clear that as from May 3, 1968, Malhati Tea Syndicate Ltd. ceased to be on the register of the joint stock companies and Malhati Tea and Industries Ltd. came into existence, and was placed on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e continued by or against the company by its new name". We are unable to accept this contention on behalf of the applicant. The first part of the sub-section protects the rights and obligations of the company, already acquired before the change of its name and also protects legal proceedings by or against it. The second part of the sub-section authorises the continuation of a pending legal proceeding which was commenced by the company in its former name. The second part provides that legal proceedings commenced by the company in its former name may be continued by the company after the change of its name. Nothing in this sub-section authorised the company to commence a legal proceeding in its former name at a time when it had acquired its ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the company in a name which has been removed from the register of the joint stock companies at the time when the appeal was filed is, in our view, incompetent. Learned advocate for the respondent contended that although the appeal is incompetent, the cross-objection should be treated to be competent and dealt with by this court accordingly. We are unable to accept this contention either. This is not a case of dismissal of appeal for default, nor a case of withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal itself being incompetent the cross-objection arising out of the same must also fail. For the reasons mentioned above, the appeal and the cross-objection fail and both are dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. P. B. Mukherji C.J. I ag ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
