Judgment Vijay Manohar Sahai, J.—Heard Ld. AGP Ms. Krina Calla for the appellants and Ms. Archana Acharya, Ld. Counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed challenging the judgment dated 25/6/2009 passed by the Ld. Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 2266 of 1994. The main ground of challenge raised by the appellants is that the Ld. Single Judge has decided the writ petition on the line of the decision of the Ld. Single Judge rendered in the case of Anup Industries Ltd. vs. State of Gujarat, reported in 2003 [1] G.L.R. 434, without giving any reasons. 3. We have examined the impugned judgment and order. We find that the Ld. Single Judge has allowed the writ petition on the same reasons which were provided in the case of Anup Industries Ltd. [Supra]. The reasons in the decision rendered in the case of Anup Industries Ltd., were provided in Para 6 of the judgment, wherein it has been held as under: “6. In support of the various contention raised on behalf of the petitioner, the learned Advocate relied upon decision of [i] Solvex Oils & Fertilizers vs. Bhandari Cros-Fields [P.] Ltd., 1978 Comp. Cases 260; [ii] Pioneer Protective Glass Fibre Pvt. Ltd. vs. Fibre Glass Pilkington Ltd., 1986 Comp. Cases 707. Thus the position in law is that by mere change of name from a Private Limited Company to Limited Company, there is no change of entity. As such all actions of the Private Limited Company shall continue against the Public.” 4. In the case in hand, the lease deed dated 30/5/1980 was executed by the Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation [for short ‘GIDC’] in favour of Glaxo India Ltd. GIDC has leased out plots to Glaxo Laboratories [India] Ltd., in the year 1980 and in the year 1987 the name was changed and from Glaxo Laboratories [India] Ltd., to GL [India] Ltd. And in the year 1989 the name was again changed by the respondent as Glaxo India Ltd. Therefore, only the name of respondent was changed and mere change in the name, the entity was not changed and the Limited Company continued to remain a Limited Company and no new entity came into existence. Therefore, the decision relied by the Ld. Single Judge squarely applies to the facts of the present case. 5. For the aforesaid reasons, the Ld. Therefore, the decision relied by the Ld. Single Judge squarely applies to the facts of the present case. 5. For the aforesaid reasons, the Ld. Single Judge did not commit any error in relying on the decision of the Ld. Single Judge rendered in the case of Anup Industries Ltd. [Supra] and accepting the reasons accorded therein, decided the writ petition by setting aside the order dated 30/11/1993. 6. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any merits in this appeal. This appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. Civil Application also stands disposed of accordingly.