Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)

(Essel Mining & Industries Ltd vs Life Insurance Corporation Of India & ... on 3 October, 2016

                                                      1



03.10.2016

.

C.O. 3220 of 2016 (Essel Mining & Industries Ltd. vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India & Anr.) with C.O. 3221 of 2016 (Essel Mining & Industries Ltd. vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India & Anr.) with C.O. 3222 of 2016 (Essel Mining & Industries Ltd. vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India & Anr.) with C.O. 3351 of 2008 C.A.N. 4081 of 2016 (Essel Mining & Industries Ltd. vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India & Ors.) with C.O. 3352 of 2008 C.A.N. 4082 of 2016 (Essel Mining & Industries Ltd. vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India & Ors.) with C.O. 3353 of 2008 C.A.N. 4083 of 2016 (Essel Mining & Industries Ltd. vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India & Ors.) Mr. Utpal Bose, Mr. Ratnesh Kumar Rai, Mr. Anunoy Basu, Mr. Srinjoy Bhattacharya, Mr. Sailendra Jain.

... for the petitioner.

Mr. Dilip Kumar Kundu, Ms. Sanjukta Roy.

... for the opposite parties.

These bunch of the revisional applications are filed against the interlocutory orders passed by the Estate Officer, Life Insurance Corporation of India in three different proceedings initiated against the petitioner in respect of three separate 2 tenancies. One of the revisional applications is filed, as the interim order was not extended by the Estate Officer.

On 5th September 2016, this Court directed all the revisional applications to be taken up together in order to secure the disposal thereof.

It is undisputed that the tenancy was created in the name of M/s. S. Lal & Co. Ltd. and a notice under Section 4 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 was issued by the Estate Officer against the said company inviting a reply to show-cause.

Amidst the pendency of the proceeding initiated before the Estate Officer, several applications were taken out including one that the present petitioner may be allowed to file the reply and contest the proceeding. It was stated in the said petition that the present petitioner was previously known as "M/s. S. Lal & Co. Ltd." and by a special resolution an approval was sought from the Central Government seeking permission to change the name of the company. It is, thus, submitted that M/s. S. Lal & Co. Ltd. and the present petitioner are one and the same company and the proceeding may be continued in the name of the present petitioner.

It is not a case that the company against whom the proceeding has been initiated has either merged with the present petitioner or the holding company. It is merely a change of name and the company, which was earlier known in a particular name, is now known as the petitioner. Mere change of the name does not change the identity of the Corporation as all the assets and liabilities of the company remain.

The learned advocate for the opposite parties is apprehensive that if any permission is allowed to recognize the petitioner in the present name, it may invite some complications and the proceedings may ultimately fail.

I am not impressed with such submissions of the opposite parties. As indicated above, mere change of a name does not take away the identity of the company nor bring changes in the share holding pattern or the Board of Directors.

This Court does not find any fetter in continuing with the proceedings even after recording the change in the name. This Court, therefore, set aside the impugned order passed by the Estate Officer.

The petitioner is permitted to file reply to the show-cause notice issued by the Estate Officer under Section 4 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 on or before 17th November 2016.

After the reply is filed, the Estate Officer shall pass consequential orders so that the proceedings may ripe for final disposal and shall also fix a date for the evidence to be adduced by the Life Insurance Corporation of India first and shall see that the dates are fixed at a reasonable gap so that it may be brought to its logical end by the end of January 2017.

With these observations, all the revisional applications are disposed of.

In view of disposal of the revisional applications, the connected applications being CAN 4081 of 2016, CAN 4082 of 2016 and CAN 4083 of 2016 are also disposed of.

ab                                      (Harish Tandon, J.)