Change of company name does not defeat execution of a decree, and a belated approval objection cannot be raised in appeal.

A mere change in a company's name does not affect its rights, obligations or pending legal proceedings, so a decree entered in the former name remained executable against the company in its new name. The court also held that an objection based on alleged absence of Central Government approval for the name change was a factual point not raised below and could not be advanced for the first time in appeal.

---

---

Issues: Whether a decree passed in the former name of a company could be executed after the company changed its name, and whether the alleged absence of Central Government approval for the change of name could be raised for the first time in appeal.

Analysis: The change of name of a company does not affect its rights or obligations, nor does it render legal proceedings defective. Proceedings that might have been continued or commenced against the company by its former name may be continued or commenced against it by its new name. Accordingly, a decree standing in the former name remained executable in the altered name. The objection regarding want of Central Government approval was treated as a question of fact not raised below, and it was not permitted to be raised at the appellate stage.

Conclusion: Execution of the decree in the new name was valid, and the belated objection to the change of name failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A mere change in the name of a company does not affect subsisting rights or legal proceedings, and a decree may be executed against the company in its new name.

---