IMPORTANT POINT
Change of a company's name does not affect ongoing legal proceedings; the company retains its legal identity.

JUDGMENT :

EASWARAN S., J.

The appeal arises from the concurrent findings of the Munsiff Court, Devikulam, in O.S.No.77/2002, as confirmed by the II Additional District Court, Thodupuzha, in A.S.No.122/2011.

2. The appellant is the defendant in a suit for declaration of title, recovery of possession of the plaint schedule building and for damages and allied reliefs. The plaintiff is a public limited company incorporated in India with its registered office at 1, Bishop Lefroy Road, Calcutta and with its regional office at Munnar, K.D.H. Village. The defendant entered into a license agreement with the plaintiff on 24.01.1986. As per the terms and conditions of the license agreement, the defendant ought to renew the license every year. It is alleged that in May, 2000, there was a default in the license fee and therefore, the plaintiff demanded the arrears through letters and finally through lawyer’s notice dated 18.09.2000. Thus when the defendant refused to pay the arrears, the suit was instituted.

3. The defendant entered appearance and contested the suit contending that the plaintiff - company is not in existence. The assets of the plaintiff - company were already handed over to the successor company M/s Tata Global Beverage Holdings Pvt. Ltd. and that the plaint schedule building was originally leased out to the father of the defendant by the Kannan Devan Hills Produce Company. Therefore, it was contended that the suit was not maintainable. On behalf of the plaintiff, Exts.A1 to A6 were marked and PW1 was examined. On behalf of defendant, Exts.B1 and B2 were marked. Defendant did not adduce any oral evidence.

4. The Trial Court, on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, found that admittedly there was a default of the payment of the license fee. There was no further renewal of the license agreement and therefore, it was found that the plaintiff was entitled for a decree as prayed for and accordingly, decreed the suit. On appeal against the judgment and decree in O.S.No.77/2002, the II Additional District Court, Thodupuzha, confirmed the findings by dismissing the appeal. Before the First Appellate Court, it was contended by the defendant that going by Section 4 of the Munnar Special Tribunal Act, 2010, the suit was not maintainable. The aforesaid contention was rejected and the appeal was dismissed. Hence, the present appeal.

5. Heard, Sri.Praveen K.Joy - learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri.John Vithayathil - learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant – Sri.Praveen K.Joy, submitted that during the pendency of the suit, the name of the plaintiff - Company was changed to Tata Global Beverages Ltd. and later, during the pendency of this appeal, the name was again changed. Thus the decree obtained by the original plaintiff is in the name of a non-existent company. In support of his contention, he relied on the decision of a learned Single Bench of the Calcutta High Court in Malhati Tea Syndicate Limited v. Revenue Officer, Jalpaiguri and Ors. [AIR 1973 Calcutta 78] and the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi v. Maruti Suzuki India Limited [ Civil Appeal No.5409/2019 ]. It is further contended that going by the provisions of the Munnar Special Tribunal Act, 2010, the suit was not maintainable before the civil court.

7. Per contra, Sri.John Vithayil - learned counsel for the respondent, pointed out that the name of the company was changed in terms of the provisions con