IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 15TH JUNE 2010 / 25TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 10137 of 2010(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- HERCULES AUTOMOBILES INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LTD., CHUNGOM, ALAPPUZHA - REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY. BY ADV. SRI.K.ANAND (A.201) SMT.LATHA KRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA. 2. THE TAHSILDAR, AMBALAPPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA. 3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, MULLAKKAL, ALAPPUZHA. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. M.A. ASIF. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 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.