RAJASTHAN TRADING CO Vs. REGISTRAR OF FIRMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only question requiring determination in this writ petition presented under Article 226 of the Constitution is as to the validity of Rule 4 (2) of the Andhra Pradesh Partnership (Registration of Firms) Rules, 1957.

(2.) The aforesaid question arises in the following circumstances: The petitioner is a partnership firm named M/s Rajasthan Trading Company, Osmanganj Hyderabad, registered under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932. The firm was registered on 8/10/1968 Subsequently, there were alterations in the constitution of the firm and they were carried out as and when the changes were notified to the Registrar of Firms, Hyderabad On 14-11-1969 the partners of the firm were: Sri Satyanarayan Bhangadia, Smt Ratan Bai Bhattad, Sri Nandlal Sarda, Smt. Yashodabai, Sri Pannalal HiralaJ Bhangadiya, Religious and Charitable Trust, Bidar, represented by their trustees, Sri Srigopal Bhattad, and Sri Raj Kumar and Sri Kant, minors. On 19-10-1971 the last mentioned two minor partners viz., Sri Raj Kumar and Sri Kant ceased to be the partners of the firm. On 20-10-1971 the firm was reconstituted with the other seven existing partners and the newly admitted partners, Smt. Kesavbai, Sri Venugopal Inani and Sri Srigopal Inani, Sri Kailashanarayan, minor by guardian Satyanarayana Bhangadia and Sri Kachrulal, minor by guardian Smt. Sarjoobai (the last two minors being admitted to the benefits of partnership).

(3.) The petitioner filed notice of the change in the constitution of the firm as required under Section 63 (1) of the Indian Partnership Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in the office of the Registrar of Firms on 4-9-1972 The required amount towards the notice fee was also paid. But the Registrar of Firms returned the said notice to the petitioner in his letter No. F 2/8052/72 dated 30-11-1972 informing that the form V notice cannot be taken on the office record since the petitioner failed to inform the change in the constitution of the firm within 15 days from the date of the said change as required under Sub-rule (2) of Rule 4 of the Andhra Pradesh Partnership Rules. The petitioner alleges that the petitioner-firm underwent number of changes in its constitution after the first registration, that he has been intimating the Registrar of Firms about the said changes and that at no time an objection was taken that the change should be intimated within 15 days from the date of any such change in the constitution although the petitioner had not filed the said notices within 15 days. The petitioner also alleges that the action of the Registrar in returning the notice dated 4-9-1972 is not warranted by the provisions of the Act. The petitioner, therefore, filed the present writ petition seeking to quash the notice of the Registrar of Firms dated 30-11-1972 and to direct the Registrar of Firms to record the change in the constitution of the firm.