Only a name change of a company does not necessarily amount to a change of ownership under relevant statutes.

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 12^th day of March 2026 Devan Ramachandran, J The appellants - the General Manager of District Industries Centre and others, challenge the judgment of the learned single Judge of this Court in W.P(C)No.15361 of 2020, on various grounds, but primarily that it has been issued without adverting to the fact that the respondent has suppressed vital facts and is refusing to offer information, in spite of several opportunities having been afforded.

2. Sri. Sunil Kuriakose - learned Government Pleader, explained that the property in question was originally allotted to a Firm, which was then authorized to be converted to a company by the name “A.P Tapes and Products Pvt. Ltd; but that somewhere along the line, the said company appears to have been completely substituted by another one by name “Max Pack Tapes and Products Pvt. Ltd”. He says that, in such circumstances, Ext.P13 order was initially issued, to resume the land; but that, subsequently, after negotiations, it was decided that the change of ownership will be authorized if certain conditions as mentioned in Ext.P25 order is conceded to by the respondent herein. He alleged that however, the learned Single Judge has set aside condition Nos.1 and 2 in Ext.P25 without any cause, holding that there is no change of ownership but only a change of name of the company; and consequently, that the appellants have been constrained to approach this Court through this appeal.

3. Sri.Jacob Sebastian – learned counsel for the respondent, however, submitted that this case is a classic one where there is much ado about nothing. He explained that the land in question was originally allotted by the District Industries Centre in favour of a Firm, which was then legally permitted to be taken over by a company by name ‘A.P Tapes and Products Pvt.Ltd’. He added that, however, since the company was facing various issues, including lack of proper branding, it was decided to change its name to the present one namely ‘Max Pack Tapes and Products Pvt. Ltd’; and this was done strictly in conformity with the provisions of the Companies Act. He pointed out that, through Exts.P3 and P5, his client had intimated the General Manager, District Industries Centre/ the 1^st appellant herein, of such change as early as on 29.12.2006 and 09.06.2007 respectively; producing therewith the order of the Registrar of Companies authorizing the name change, the copy of Form 32 filed with the said Authority, Fresh Certificate of Incorporation consequent to the change of name, as also the amended Articles of Association of the company. He showed us that, in Ext.P5, the reason for the change of name of the company was spcifically informed to the 1^st appellant, namely that it was part of their strategy for brand creation and image building to improve business. He contended that, in such circumstances, Ext.P13 was unnecessary and merely to harass his client.

4. Before we move ahead, we must record that, another learned Bench of this Court had passed an order in this appeal on the 17^th of June 2022, in the following manner;

“Before the writ court, petitioner has sought for the following reliefs:-

“i. Quash exhibits P13 and P25 issuing a writ in the nature of certiorari;

ii. declare that the change of name or the reconstitution of the board of directors of a private limited company which is the owner of a land will not legally amount to change of ownership of land;

iii. issue a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the first respondent to ratify the change of name of the petitioner company (Max Pack Tapes & Products Pvt. Ltd.) as well as the reconstitution of the board of directors with effect from 30th of May 2007 and make conse