SAMRAT SPAN REALTIES Vs. REGISTRAR OF FIRMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard the learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) The refusal on the part of the Registrar of Firms to record change in the constitution of the Partnership Firm consequent upon expulsion of some partners is under challenge in this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) The facts relevant for adjudicating the writ petition are that it is the case of the petitioner-Firm that it's partners, along with respondent nos.2 to 6, constituted a Partnership Firm - Firm that was duly registered under the provisions of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 (for short, "the Act of 1932"). The Firm consisted of thirteen partners. Eight partners issued a notice to the remaining partners on 25/6/2011 stating therein that since the said noticees failed to comply with the contractual obligations mentioned in the Partnership Deed dtd. 14/8/2009, they were being expelled from the Firm. This notice was replied by respondent nos.2 to 6 denying the allegations as made and questioning the legality of their expulsion. Based on such action of expulsion, the partners claiming to constitute the Firm, issued a notice on 3/1/2014 to the Registrar of Firms with a request to delete the names of the expelled partners from the Registrar of Firms and amend the entries accordingly. This was followed by various reminders and ultimately by a notice dtd. 19/2/2016, the Registrar of Firms was called upon to take necessary steps within a period of seven days of receiving the notice. In response, the Assistant Registrar of Firms issued a communication to the petitioner on 15 thMarch 2016 stating therein that there was no provision under the Act of 1932 to record any change that occurs in a Firm on the basis of expulsion of a partner. It was further stated that under Sec. 63, read with Form "E", there was no provision to record such change. The partners were directed to take necessary steps and obtain orders from a Court of law. Being aggrieved, the Firm, through one of it's partner, has challenged this communication dtd. 15/3/2016. A further intimation given to the Firm on 14/6/2017, reiterating the same stand is also under challenge.