Ltd) vs Himachal Pradesh Urban ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 1356 HP

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWPs No.888 and 889 of 2010 Reserved on : 24.2.2021

.

Date of Decision : 26.2.2021

CWP No.888/2010 Mahle Filter Systems India Ltd. (Formerly Purolator India

Ltd) ....Petitioner Versus Himachal Pradesh Urban Development Authority (HIMUDA) and another.

....Respondents CWP No.889/2010 Mahle Filter Systems India Ltd. (Formerly Purolator India Ltd) r ....Petitioner

Versus Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board (HPSEB), through its Chairman and others.

....Respondents

Coram:

The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting? Yes.

For the Petitioner in : Ms Manisha Gandhi, Senior Advocate, Both the Petitions. with Mr. Suvineet Shamra & Mr. Rahul Mahajan, Advocates.

For the respondent : Mr. Bhupinder Gupta, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Ajeet Singh Jaswal, Advocate, for HIMUDA in both the petitions.

Mr. Desh Raj Thakur, Additional Advocates General and Mr. R.P.Singh, Deputy Advocate General, for the State in both the petitions.

Mr. T.S. Chauhan and Mr. Abhay Kaushal, Advocates for HPSEB.

CWPs No.888 & 889 of 2010 ...2...

Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge

These interconnected two petitions are being

.

disposed of by this common judgment.

CWP No.888 of 2010

2. M/s Mahle Filter Systems India Ltd. (formerly

Purolator India Ltd.) (hereinafter referred to as Petitioner -

Company), by way of this Writ Petition, has approached this

Court, assailing Office Order dated 25.2.2010, Annexure-1,

passed by CEO-cum-Secretary, Himachal Pradesh Urban

Development Authority (HIMUDA) - respondent No.1,

whereby petitioner - M/s Mahle Filter Systems India Ltd. has

been called upon to deposit an amount to the tune of

`15,80,97,144/- alongwith interest at the rate of 14% per

annum from 12.6.2009 till its realization, on account of 50%

unearned increase with respect to Plots No.14 to 15, Sector-

1, Parwanoo, for alleged transfer of these plots from M/s

Purolator India Ltd. to a new company M/s Mahle Filter

Systems India Ltd., without taking prior permission/consent

of the lessor, i.e. HIMUDA, causing violation of Clause-

2(v)(a) of Lease Deed executed between HIMUDA and M/s

Purolator India Ltd.

3. Facts emerging from the pleadings are that

petitioner-Company was originally incorporated in the name

CWPs No.888 & 889 of 2010 ...3...

of M/s Purolator India Ltd. under Companies Act, 1956 and

registered as Public Limited Company in the year 1966,

.

resulting into issuance of Certificate of Incorporation dated

16.4.1966, Annexure-2, in its favour by Registrar of

Companies, Punjab and Himachal Pradesh.

4. M/s Purolator India Ltd. was allotted two

industrial Plots No.14 & 15 in Sector-1, Parwanoo, by the

then Himachal Pradesh Housing Board (now HIMUDA) on

12.9.1975 and 7.5.1977 respectively, on a Long Term Lease

of 95 years, whereupon M/s Purolator India Ltd. established

its manufacturing facilities Unit-1 and Unit-2.

5. In the year 2007, a Company namely M/s Mahle

Filter Systems India (P) Ltd. presented a scheme in the High

Court of Delhi for amalgamating itself with M/s Purolator

India Ltd. and proposing thereby that all assets and

liabilities of the Transferor Company, i.e. M/s Mahle Filter

Systems India (P) Ltd. were to be transferred and vested in

Transferee Company, i.e. M/s Purolator India Ltd., with

further condition that M/s Purolator India Ltd. shall change

its name to M/s Mahle Filter Systems India Ltd., by following

the prescribed procedure under the Companies Act, 1956.

6. Aforesaid Amalgamation Scheme was

sanctioned by the High Court of Delhi, vide order dated

CWPs No.888 & 889 of 2010 ...4...

27.5.2008, whereupon Assets and Liabilities of M/s Mahle

Filter Systems India (P) Ltd. were transferred to and vested

.

in M/s Purolator India Ltd. with effect from the appointed

date, i.e. 1.4.2007.

7. Consequent upon sanction of Amalgamation

Scheme and condition incorporated therein, M/s Purolator

India Ltd. applied to the Registrar of Companies for change

of its name to M/s Mahle Filter Systems India Ltd., by

passing necessary resolution, in terms of Section 21 of the

Companies Act, 1956. After due approval of Central

Government, coupled with Notification dated 24.6.1985,

Registrar of Companies, on 4.9.2008, notified the change of

name of M/s Purolator India Ltd., as proposed, to M/s Mahle

Filter Systems India Ltd. and issued a 'Fresh Certificate of

Incorporation Consequent upon Change of Name'

(Annexure-3) pursuant to Section 23(1) of the Companies

Act, 1956.

8. Thereafter, M/s Purolator India Ltd., named as

M/s Mahle Filter Systems India Ltd. informed the Member

Secretary, SWCA, Industries Department, Parwanoo (MSID)

regarding the aforesaid name change with a request to take

note of the change and to make necessary changes in its

records to endorse the change in the Certificate of

CWPs No.888 & 889 of 2010 ...5...

Registration. The said information was transmitted by MSID

to respondent No.2 - Director of Industries, on the basis of

.

which information, respondent No.2, vide letter dated

6.11.2008, recommended to HIMUDA for necessary

permission for change of name from M/s Purolator India Ltd.

to M/s Mahle Filter Systems India Ltd. and for execution of

Supplementary Lease Deed by the Company, in terms of

provisions of rules of HIMUDA. On perusal of

communication dated 6.11.2008, Annexure-R1/B, it appears

that MSID, vide letter dated 4.10.2008, had informed

respondent No.2-Director of Industries that M/s Purolator

India Ltd. has been merged with M/s Mahle Filter Systems

India Ltd., as per Scheme of Merger approved by High Court

of Delhi and, thus, the business vested in M/s Mahle Filter

Systems India Ltd.

9. In consequence to communication dated

6.11.2008, HIMUDA, through its CEO-cum-Secretary, had

asked M/s Purolator India Ltd. to supply attested copy of

petition filed by M/s Purolator India Ltd. regarding its

merger with M/s Mahle Filter Systems India Ltd. alongwith

certified/attested copy of order dated 27.5.2008, passed by

High Court of Delhi for merger of M/s Purolator India Ltd.

with M/s Mahle Filter Systems India Ltd.

CWPs No.888 & 889 of 2010 ...6...

10. M/s Mahle Filter Systems India Ltd., vide

communication dated 20.1.2009 responded to

.

communication dated 14.11.2008, informing that neither

M/s Purolator India Ltd. had merged with M/s Mahle Filter

Systems India Ltd. nor its business was vested in another

company and to substantiate and reflect the correct

position, copy of order dated 27.5.2008 passed by High

Court of Delhi, approving the Scheme of Arrangement of

Amalgamation of M/s Mahle Filter Systems India (P) Ltd.

with erstwhile M/s Purolator India Ltd. and consequent

change of name of company to M/s Mahle Filter Systems

India Ltd. alongwith Scheme of Arrangement of

Amalgamation as submitted before the High Court of Delhi

and copy of the petition filed therein were also supplied

alongwith this communication.

11. Vide communication dated 10.2.2009, HIMUDA,

through its CEO-cum-Secretary, had asked the Petitioner-

Company to supply some other documents, which, in turn,

were supplied to HIMUDA, vide communication dated

15.6.2009, Annexure-12. After concluding that it appeared

that leasehold rights of Industrial Plots No.14 & 15 had been

transferred by M/s Purolator India Ltd. in the name of M/s

Mahle Filter Systems India (P) Ltd. without permission of

CWPs No.888 & 889 of 2010 ...7...

Lessor (HIMUDA), in breach of the contract, Petitioner-

Company was directed to deposit `15,80,97,144/-, on

.

account of 50% amount of unearned increase as per

Clause-2(v)(a) of Lease Deed and complete formalities were

directed to be completed, within 30 days from the date of

issue of notice i.e. 15.6.2009, with condition that failing in

compliance, penal interest at the rate of 14% per annum

shall be charged on delayed payment.

12. Petitioner-Company, vide communication dated

15.7.2009, Annexure-13, had tried to clarify that M/s Mahle

Filter Systems India (P) Ltd. has merged with M/s Purolator

India Ltd., consequent upon the order passed by High Court

of Delhi, and also thereon, as per approved Scheme for

Amalgamation, name of M/s Purolator India Ltd. to M/s

Mahle Filter Systems India Ltd., as duly approved by the

Registrar of Companies, by issuing fresh Certificate of

Incorporation, with effect from 4.9.2008. The said fact was

also communicated by Director of Industries to HIMUDA,

vide letter dated 12.11.2008 and it was canvassed by the

Petitioner-Company that change of name of Company does

not result in transfer of property and, therefore, there is no

transfer of leasehold rights of Industrial Plots, warranting

payment of unearned increase, attracting Clause-2(v)(a) of

CWPs No.888 & 889 of 2010 ...8...

Lease Deed and further that there was no condition in the

Lease Deed to have prior consent of HIMUDA for change of

.

name of the Company.

13. Vide notice dated 2.12.2009, HIMUDA again

reiterated its earlier stand and called upon the Petitioner-

Company to deposit the amount on account of unearned

increase as already claimed by it in previous

communications with condition that failure in deposit will

result cancellation of allotment and termination of lease,

with further right to recover all liquidated damages. The

said notice was also responded by Petitioner-Company, vide

communication dated 23.12.2009. Thereafter, on 2.1.2010,

to avoid eviction and dispossession of Petitioner-Company

from the Industrial Plots by HIMUDA, Petitioner-Company

had filed a Civil Writ Petition No.8 of 2010 before this Court,

which was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court vide

order dated 4.1.2010, directing HIMUDA to take a final

decision, by passing a speaking and reasonable order,

within a period of eight weeks from the date of passing of

the order, after taking into consideration contents of the

reply filed by the Petitioner-Company to the notice and also

considering the provisions of Transfer of Property Act, 1882,

Companies Act, 1956 and Terms and Conditions of the

CWPs No.888 & 889 of 2010 ...9...

Lease. Liberty was also granted to the Petitioner-Company

to depute its representative, in case it was so desired, to be

.

heard in person.

14. Consequent to the aforesaid events, impugned

order dated 25.2.2010, Annexure-1, under challenge in

present petition, was passed.

15. Relevant Condition No.2(v)(a), contained in the

Lease Deed, relevant for adjudication of the matter, is as

under:

"2(v)(a) The lessee shall not sell, transfer,

assigns or otherwise part with the possession of the whole or any art of the industrial plot except with

the previous consent is writing of the parties which he shall be entitled to effuse in the absolute discretion.

PROVIDED that such consent shall not be

given for a period of ten years from the commencement of this lease unless, in the opinion of the Lessor, exceptional circumstances exist for the grant of such consent.

PROVIDED FURTHER that, in the event of the consent being given the Lessor may impose such

terms and conditions as he thinks fit and the Lessor shall be entitled to claim and recover a portion of the unearned increase in the value (i.e. the

difference sale, transfer, assignment, or parting with the possession the amount to be recovered being fifty percent of the unearned increase and the decision of the Lessor in respect of the market value shall be final and binding.

PROVIDED FURTHER that the Lessor shall have the pre-emptive right to purchase the property after deducting fifty percent of the unearned increase as aforesaid."

CWPs No.888 & 889 of 2010 ...10...

16. Relevant provisions of Companies Act, 1956, in

vogue, as applicable at the relevant point of time, with

.

respect to change of name of Company are as under:

"21. Change of name by company.- A company may, by special resolution and with the approval of the Central Government signified in writing, change its

name;

Provided that no such approval shall be required where the only change in the name of the company is the addition thereto or, as the case may be, the deletion therefrom, of the word "Private",

consequent on the conversion in accordance with the provisions of this Act of a public company into a private company or of a private company into a public company."

r .............................

23. Registration of change of name and effect thereof.- (1) Where a company changes its name in pursuance of section 21 or 22, the Registrar shall enter the new name on the register in the place of the former name, and shall issue a fresh certificate

of incorporation with the necessary alterations embodies therein; and the change of name shall be complete and effective only on the issue of such a certificate.

(2) The Registrar shall also make the necessary alteration in the memorandum of association of the

company.

(3) The change of name shall not effect any rights or obligations of the company, or render defective

any legal proceedings by or against it; and any legal proceedings which might have been continued or commenced by or against the company by its former name may be continued by or against the company by its new name."

17. On perusal of Memo of Parties filed with copy of

decision dated 27.5.2008 (Annexure-6), passed by High

Court of Delhi, it is apparent that matter decided by the

CWPs No.888 & 889 of 2010 ...11...

said Court was a Scheme of Arrangement of Merger of M/s

Mahle Filter Systems India (P) Ltd. with M/s Purolator India

.

Ltd., wherein M/s Mahle Filter Systems India (P) Ltd. was

Transferor Company whereas M/s Purolator India Ltd. was

Transferee Company and in this decision sanction was

granted to the proposed scheme for amalgamation of

Transferor Company with the Transferee Company and

Scheme of Amalgamation was approved with effect from

appointed date, i.e. 1.4.2007, with following order:

"1. That all the property, rights and powers of the

Transferor Company specified in the First, Second and Third parts of the Schedule-II hereto and all

other property, rights and powers of the Transferor Company be transferred without further act or deed to the Transferee Company and accordingly the same shall pursuant to Section 394(2) of the Companies Act, 1956 be transferred to and vest in

the Transferee Company for all the estate and interest of the Transferor Company therein but subject nevertheless to all charges now affecting the same; and

2. That all the liabilities and duties of the Transferor Company be transferred without further

act or deed to the Transferee Company and accordingly the same shall pursuant to Section 394(2) of the Companies Act, 1956 be transferred to

and become the liabilities and duties of the Transferee Company; and

3. That all the proceedings now pending by or against the Transferor Company be continued by or against the Transferee Company; and

4. That the Transferee Company do without further application allot to such members of the Transferor Company as have not given such notice of dissent as is required by Clause 9 given in the Scheme of Amalgamation herein, the shares in the

CWPs No.888 & 889 of 2010 ...12...

Transferee Company to which they are entitled under the said amalgamation; and

5. That the Transferor Company do within five weeks after the date of this order cause a certified

.

copy of this order to be delivered to the Registrar of

Companies for registration and on such certified copy being so delivered, the Transferor Company shall be dissolved without the process of winding up and the Registrar of Companies shall place all

documents relating to the Transferor Company and registered with him on the file kept by him in relation to the Transferee Company and the files relating to the said Transferor and Transferee Companies shall be consolidated accordingly. It is clarified that this order will not be construed as an

order granting exemption from payment of stamp duty if payable in accordance with the law in regard to increase in the share capital of the Transferee Company; and

6. That any person interested shall be at liberty

to apply to the Court in the above matter for any directions that may be necessary; and

7. Transferee Company to deposit cost of Rs.20,000/- in the Common Pool Fund of the Official Liquidator within three weeks."

18. Clause-10 of Scheme for above referred

Amalgamation of Companies, containing condition for

substitution of name of Transferee Company, is as under:

"10. Upon this Scheme becoming finally effective:

....................

....................

(e) The name of the Transferee Company shall be substituted with the name of the Transferor Company. Pursuant to the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, the Transferee Company will make necessary application to the concerned Registrar of Companies and other competent authorities, if any, to give effect to the said change of name."

CWPs No.888 & 889 of 2010 ...13...

19. It is apparent from record that Transferor

Company, i.e. M/s Mahle Filter Systems India (P) Ltd., stood

.

dissolved without process of winding up, on account of its

amalgamation in the Transferee Company, i.e. M/s Purolator

India Ltd., whereas M/s Purolator India Ltd. was

incorporated and registered as Public Limited Company and

after amalgamation/merger, M/s Purolator India Ltd. was re-

named as M/s Mahle Filter Systems India Ltd., but not as

M/s Mahle Filter Systems India Private Ltd., for the reason

that M/s Mahle Filter Systems India (P) Ltd. stood dissolved

after its merger in M/s Purolator India Ltd., which was a

Public Limited Company, and was re-named as M/s Mahle

Filter Systems India Ltd. It has been informed that it

remained Public Limited Company till 2015. The lis in

present petition is pertaining to the period prior to 2010.

The constitution of the renamed company, at relevant point

of time was as a Public Limited. However, this description

was overlooked by HIMUDA, as in their communication,

notices and orders, particularly communication dated

10.9.2009 (Annexure-10); and notice dated 2.12.2009

(Annexure-14), HIMUDA had considered and addressed the

Petitioner-Company as M/s Mahle Filter Systems India

Private Ltd. and, thus, it appears that due to resemblance of

CWPs No.888 & 889 of 2010 ...14...

name of two different companies, one of which was Private

Limited and another was Public Limited, Officers and

.

officials of HIMUDA had erred in arriving at conclusion that

Transferor Company M/s Mahle Filter Systems India (P) Ltd.,

in the Scheme sanctioned by the High Court of Delhi, was

the Company which had acquired M/s Purolator India Ltd.,

resulting into transfer of Industrial Plots by M/s Purolator

India Ltd. to the said Company, whereas, as a matter of

fact, M/s Mahle Filter Systems India (P) Ltd. was dissolved

and, after amalgamation, M/s Purolator India Ltd. was re-

named as M/s Mahle Filter Systems India Ltd. but not M/s

Mahle Filter Systems India (P) Ltd.

20. With sanction of Scheme of Amalgamation with

effect from the appointed date, i.e. 1.4.2007, Transferor

Company stood dissolved from the said date, or at the most

from the date of sanction of the Scheme by the High Court

of Delhi, vide order dated 27.5.2008, whereas name of M/s

Purolator India Ltd. has been changed to M/s Mahle Filter

Systems India Ltd. on 4.9.2008, in pursuant to resolution

passed by the said Company and due approval by Central

Government, in terms of Section 21 of the Companies Act,

1956. At the time of allowing and registering the change of

name of M/s Purolator India Ltd. as M/s Mahle Filter Systems

CWPs No.888 & 889 of 2010 ...15...

India Ltd., no Company, so registered with identical or too

closely resembling with the changed name, was in

.

existence, and fresh Certificate of Incorporation has been

issued consequent upon change of name by Registrar of

Companies after due compliance of provisions of

Companies Act, particularly Section 21.

21. Section 23(3) of Companies Act, 1956 provides

that change of name of the Company shall not affect any

rights or obligations of the Company, or render defective

any legal procedure by or against it and such proceedings

may be continued by or against the Company by

substituting its new name.

22. Change of name of a Company does not mean

change of owner or proprietor. On change of name of a

person, natural or legal, including an entity like a Company

registered under Companies Act, 1956, it cannot be

construed that property belonging to that person/entity has

been transferred from person 'A' to person 'B' as there are

no two persons but only one person in existence, who has

to be identified with changed name. Therefore, in present

case also, HIMUDA has mis-described and misconstrued the

documents placed before it and at one place Director of

Industries and/or MSID, in their communications dated

CWPs No.888 & 889 of 2010 ...16...

6.11.2009 and 4.10.2008 respectively, had also mis-

communicated that M/s Purolator India Ltd. has merged

.

with M/s Mahle Filter Systems India Ltd. and business of M/s

Purolator India Ltd. has vested in M/s Mahle Filter Systems

India Ltd., whereas fact was and is that M/s Mahle Filter

Systems India (P) Ltd. had merged in M/s Purolator India

Ltd. and thereafter name of M/s Purolator India Ltd. has

been changed to M/s Mahle Filter Systems India Ltd.

23. Clause-2(v)(a) of Lease Deed mandates

recovery of unearned increase for breach of this clause

whereby a bar has been put on the lessee on selling,

transferring, assigning or otherwise parting with possession

of the whole or any part of Industrial Plots, except, in

writing previous consent of parties. On change of name of

'A' from 'X' to 'Y', the person 'A' remains the same and,

thus, property of 'A' also remains with 'A' but with changed

name and, thus, change of name of 'A' from 'X' to 'Y' does

not amount to selling, transferring, assigning or otherwise

parting with possession of the property of 'A' to some other

person. Therefore, in present case, HIMUDA has wrongly

invoked this condition for issuance of notices against the

Petitioner-Company and passing impugned order dated

25.2.2010.

CWPs No.888 & 889 of 2010 ...17...

24. Present case is acquisition of another company

by way of amalgamation/merger and change of name of

.

acquiring company, i.e. Lessee to the name of acquired

company. Clause-2(v)(a) of Lease Deed, nowhere prohibits

the lessee from changing its name. It does not contemplate

a condition to have permission, muchless previous in

writing permission, to change the name of lessee or to

acquire any other company by way of amalgamation. No

other condition, restricting or prohibiting the lessee from

changing its name or from acquiring other company has

been pointed out. Therefore, acquiring another company

by lessee and/or change of its name to the name of

acquired company, without prior permission of HIMUDA, do

not attract Clause-2(v)(a) of Lease Deed.

25. In present case, assets of lessee have not been

transferred to any other company but assets of another

company have been transferred in favour of lessee.

Previous consent for filing amalgamation petition, acquiring

any other Company by lessee is not warranted under

Clause-2(v)(a). Had it been a merger of lessee in any other

company alongwith its assets, provisions of Clause-2(v)(a)

of Lease Deed might have been attracted, but factual

CWPs No.888 & 889 of 2010 ...18...

matrix is not so in present case. Thus, action of HIMUDA is

misconceived.

.

26. In view of the above, it is evident that M/s Mahle

Filter Systems India Ltd. is none else but the M/s Purolator

India Ltd. and HIMUDA is not entitled to claim 50%

unearned increase of `15,80,97,144/- alongwith 14%

interest from the Petitioner-Company and, accordingly,

Office Order dated 25.2.2010 (Annexure-1) is quashed and

consequently HIMUDA is directed to incorporate the change

of name of M/s Purolator India Ltd. in its record of allotment

of concerned Industrial Plots as M/s Mahle Filter Systems

India Ltd. and concerned parties, including HIMUDA, are

directed to execute all necessary documents, including

Supplementary Lease Deed, if required so, under the Rules,

Regulations and Law applicable in present case on or before

30.4.2021.

CWP No.889 of 2010

27. This petition has been preferred by M/s Mahle

Filter Systems India Ltd./Petitioner-Company for quashing of

letter dated 12.3.2010, Annexure A-14, whereby CEO-cum-

Secretary of HIMUDA has declined to consider the request

made by Petitioner-Company for issuance of No Objection

Certificate (NOC) for sanction and release of Power Load to

CWPs No.888 & 889 of 2010 ...19...

Petitioner-Company from Himachal Pradesh State Electricity

Board (HPSEB), on the ground that M/s Mahle Filter Systems

.

India Ltd. is in unauthorized use and occupation of

Industrial Plots No.14 & 15, referred supra. Petitioner has

also sought direction, in the nature of mandamus, to

HIMUDA to issue an NOC to the Petitioner-Company with

further direction to Director of Industries not to

withhold/delay the issuance of Certificate of

Commencement of Production, on the ground that load

connection has not been sanctioned.

28. HIMUDA is contesting this petition on the basis

of averments made in response to CWP No.888 of 2010.

Director of Industries has not filed any reply, rather, as

noticed supra, has recommended for change of name in the

allotment of Industrial Plots in favour of M/s Mahle Filter

Systems India Ltd.

29. HPSEB has contested this petition, by filing

reply, wherein main objection taken is that a new

connection has been sought to be sanctioned and released

in favour of Petitioner-Company in Industrial Plots No.14 &

15, in the name of M/s Mahle Filter Systems India Ltd.

whereas, as per record of HPSEB M/s Purolator India Ltd. is

the allottee and, therefore, Petitioner-Company is not

CWPs No.888 & 889 of 2010 ...20...

entitled for a new regular connection in its name on these

Plots and to ascertain the right of Petitioner-Company to get

.

the electricity connection sanctioned and released in its

favour, on aforesaid Industrial Plots, HPSEB had asked the

Petitioner-Company to produce NOC from HIMUDA but the

Petitioner-Company had failed to produce NOC from

HIMUDA and, therefore, connection could not be sanctioned

and released in favour of Petitioner-Company.

30. It is also stated on behalf of HPSEB that a new

connection has been released in favour Petitioner-Company

and load has been sanctioned to it as per orders passed by

this Court as vide order dated 22.3.2010, it was directed

that NOC shall not be insisted for the purpose of grant of

connection. In consequence thereto, HPSEB has already

sanctioned and released the electricity connection in favour

of Petitioner-Company.

31. As held in CWP No.888 of 2010, Petitioner-

Company is none else but the M/s Purolator India Ltd. and

HIMUDA has been directed to permit the change of name of

M/s Purolator India Ltd. in record of allotment of Industrial

Plots as M/s Mahle Filter Systems India Ltd. and, therefore,

Petitioner-Company M/s Mahle Filter Systems India Ltd.

(formerly Purolator India Ltd.) is original allottee of

CWPs No.888 & 889 of 2010 ...21...

Industrial Plots No.14 & 15 and, thus, Petitioner-Company is

also entitled for consequential benefits as available to it as

.

such.

32. Therefore, in present petition also, for

discussions and order passed in CWP No.888 of 2010,

respondents are directed to complete all necessary

compliance of all formalities required for regularizing the

electricity connection sanctioned and power load released

in favour of Petitioner-Company in pursuance to interim

order passed by this Court. Parties, including Petitioner-

Company, are directed to complete all formalities on or

before 30.4.2021.

CWPs No.888 and 889 of 2010

Both the petitions are allowed in the aforesaid

terms, so also pending application(s), if any.

                                             ( Vivek Singh Thakur )
    February 26, 2021(sd)                             Judge.