KOLLI BUCHI KOTAIAH Vs. REGISTRAR OF FIRMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A Partnership Firm, by name, M/s. Sri Krishnaveni Poultry Needs was constituted in the year 1986, with five persons, by name, Kolli Buchi Kotaiah, Kolli Satyanarayana, Kolli Panduranga Rao, Kolli Rama Devi. In 08.09.1988, Kolli Venkata Padmanabham is said to have joined as partner. Another person, by name G. Ranga Rao joined, and Kolli Satyanarayana retired, in the year 1992. The petitioner is functioning as Managing Partner. In the year 2009, the petitioner filed four applications in form No. 5, dated 31.01.2009, before the Registrar of Firms, the 1st respondent herein. In one form, it was mentioned that a partner, by name Kolli Venkata Padmanabham, retired from the partnership, and his sworn affidavit, dated 05.02.2009, was filed. In another form of the same date, it was mentioned that respondents 2 and 3, by name Kolli Panduranga Rao and Kolli Rama Devi, retired as partners. Their sworn affidavits, dated 13.02.2009, were filed. The affidavits and relevant records were assigned numbers 1, 2 and 3 of 2009. Acting on the same, the 1st respondent made entries in the concerned register.

(2.) Respondents 2 and 3 submitted representation/appeal on 31.10.2009 stating that Kolli Venkata Padmanabham died, way back in the year 05.06.1994 and that they did not submit any affidavits stating that they have retired from the firm. Taking this into account, the 1st respondent issued notice to all the partners, including the petitioner herein. An explanation was submitted by the petitioner admitting the fact that Padmanabham died in the year 1994. He, however, stated that respondents 2 and 3 filed their affidavits and are now retracting from their stands. Taking this into account, the 1st respondent passed an order dated 08.11.2001, cancelling the entries made on the basis of the document numbers 1, 2 and 3 of 2009. The said proceedings are challenged in this writ petition.

(3.) The petitioners contend that the entries were made under Section 60 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 (for short 'the Act') and any steps in relation thereto, could have been taken under Section 64 thereof. It is urged that the impugned order does not accord with the prescribed procedure. He contends that it is only when application is made by all the parties to the document, that steps can be taken under Section 64 of the Act.