Company Name Change Not a Property Transfer; Court Upholds Mutation Order, Grants More Time for Compliance in Contempt Case.

The court dismissed the application for review, ruling that the company's name change did not equate to a property transfer, thus upholding the original order for mutation in favor of the writ petitioner. The contempt application was adjourned for four weeks, granting the contemnors additional time to comply with the court's December 3, 1998, order. The court emphasized that the respondents' failure to comply was not bona fide and warned of potential actions if compliance was not achieved within the given timeframe.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Application for contempt alleging willful and deliberate violation of a court order.
2. Application for review and re-calling of the court order directing mutation of property.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Application for Contempt:
The contempt application alleges willful and deliberate violation and disobedience of the order dated December 3, 1998, by Satya Brata Sinha, J., which directed the mutation of the name of the writ petitioner in relation to a property. The relevant clause in the perpetual lease required the lessee to obtain approval for any assignment or transfer and to pay a portion of the unearned increase in the value of the land. Despite the order, the respondents failed to act in terms of the judgment, leading to the filing of the contempt application on December 2, 1999. The court found that the respondents' interpretation of the order was not legally sustainable and that their non-compliance was not bona fide. The court decided to adjourn the matter for four weeks to allow the contemnors to comply with the order, failing which appropriate actions would be taken.

2. Application for Review:
The review application sought to re-call the order dated December 3, 1998, which directed the mutation of property in favor of the writ petitioner. The respondents argued that the change of name from Marble Trading Company Limited to W. H. Targett (India) Limited was not merely a change of name but a change of hands, necessitating compliance with the lease deed's provisions, particularly clause 2(13). They contended that the Hon'ble Judge did not consider the applicability of Sections 5 and 6 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, which define and restrict the transfer of property. The court, however, held that the change of name did not constitute a transfer of interest in property and that the property remained with the same entity. The court also noted that under Sections 21 and 23 of the Companies Act, 1956, a change of name does not affect the company's rights or obligations. The review application was found to be an attempt to re-argue points already rejected and was thus dismissed.

Conclusion:
The court rejected the application for review, emphasizing that the change of name of the company did not constitute a transfer of property. The application for contempt was adjourned for four weeks to allow the contemnors to comply with the court's order, failing which appropriate actions would be taken. The court reiterated that the respondents' non-compliance was not bona fide and that they were bound to comply with the order.

---