HARIJAN BOOT HOUSE AHMEDABAD Vs. REGISTRAR OF FIRMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Should the application for recording of changes in the constitution of a firm be submitted within a specified time limit and should the same be submitted in person and not by post? The aforesaid question has arisen in the context of the facts narrated harainbelow.

(2.) Petitioner firm stated its business some time in the year 1946. The firm got itself registered with the Registrar of Firms on 10/03/1955 Thereafter a partner Balvantbhai Dahyabhai Modi died on 5/05/1976 Thus there was a change in the constitution of the firm. But the same was not recorded in the register of firms with the Registrar of Firms. Again another partner Narshibhai Chandulal Nanavati retired from the firm on 27/06/1986 This change in the constitution of the firm was also not got recorded with the Registrar of Firms. However the registration of the firm as originally recorded on 10/03/1955 continued.

(3.) The petitioner firm submitted an application on 27/06/1986 by registered post and requested that the aforesaid changes in the constitution of the firm be noted in the relevant records of the Registrar of firms. The application was rejected by the office of Registrar of firms on the ground that the application should not have been sent by post but the same should have been submitted in person. Thereafter the petitioner submitted two separate applications dated 4/08/1986 requesting to record the change on account of death of one of the partners Shri Balvantbhai Dahyabhai Modi which took place on 5/05/1976 Another application dated 27/10/1986 was submitted for effecting change in the constitution of firm on account of retirement of one of the partners i.e. Narshibhai Chandulal Nanavati. Both those applications have been rejected by the respondent on the ground that the applications for recording change in the constitution of firm have been submitted after a period of about 10 years in one case and in another case the application has been submitted after a period of about 4 years and 6 months. Thus in the opinion of the respondent the applications were inordinately delayed and were submitted after the lapse of a reasonably long time. The respondent also held that in the application for recording change the applicant is required to make following declaration: