https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=787494 Whether the Registrar or Deputy Commissioner could cancel a partnership registration was resolved by applying statutory interpretation of the Indian Partnership Act and Delhi Rules: the Registrar's role is confined to rectifying register entries to conform with filed documents and the Rules permit noting protests and enquiries but do not confer power to cancel; consequently the Deputy Commissioner had no implied review power to rescind registrations. The court rejected retrospective effect given to a resignation letter and found absence of clear, contemporaneous fraud that could justify cancellation outside express statutory authority; the cancellation orders were set aside and the registration restored. en-us Fri, 27 Feb 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 07 Mar 2026 08:39:13 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=787494 Whether the Registrar or Deputy Commissioner could cancel a partnership registration was resolved by applying statutory interpretation of the Indian Partnership Act and Delhi Rules: the Registrar's role is confined to rectifying register entries to conform with filed documents and the Rules permit noting protests and enquiries but do not confer power to cancel; consequently the Deputy Commissioner had no implied review power to rescind registrations. The court rejected retrospective effect given to a resignation letter and found absence of clear, contemporaneous fraud that could justify cancellation outside express statutory authority; the cancellation orders were set aside and the registration restored. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 27 Feb 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=787494