TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2006 (9) TMI 596
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... December, 1999. Respondent No. 2 is the Registrar of Firms who is exercising the powers, functions and duties under the Indian Partnership Act. Mr. Adamji Yahyabhai Jasdanwala, a partner of the firm, now retired, shifted his residence on 17th April, 1972. Petitioner No. 2 shifted his residence on 21st August, 1975. Mr. Abbas Jasdanwala, now retired, also shifted his residence on 18th October, 1979. The reconstitution of the firm in the year 1982 was intimated to the office of respondent No. 2. By Deed of Partnership dated 1st December, 1999, petitioner No. 3 and petitioner No. 4 have been admitted as partners of the firm. The petitioners through their advocates lodged the Deed of Partnership dated 1st December, 1999 and Form "E" as prescribed in the Indian Partnership Act, being the notice of change of constitution of the said firm on 27th December, 1999 with respondent No. 2. As two more partners had retired from the firm, another intimation in Form "E" was submitted with respondent No. 2 on 17th January, 2000. Respondent No. 2 noted the change of address of one Adamji and Abbas and also called upon the petitioners to submit Form "D" by its intimation dated 14-3-2000. By notice d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tatement relating to the firm filed under Section 59. (A) Where a change occurs in the constitution of a registered firm, all persons, who after such change are partners of the firm, shall jointly send an intimation of such change duly signed by them, to the Registrar, within a period of 90 days from the date of occurrence of such change and the Registrar shall deal with it in the manner provided by Section 61. 69-A. Penalty for contravention of Sections 60, 61, 62 or 63, - If any statement, intimation or notice under Sections 60, 61, 62, 63 in respect of any registered firm is not sent or given to the Registrar, within the period specified in that section, the Registrar may, after giving notice to the partners of the firm and after giving them a reasonable opportunity of being heard, refuse to make the suitable amendments in the records relating to the firm, until the partners of the firm pay such penalty, not exceeding ten rupees per day, as the Registrar may determine in respect of the period between the date of expiry of the period specified in Sections 60, 61, 62, 63 or as the case may be, and the date of making the amendments in the entries relating to the f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sections, the Registrar may, after notice to the partners of the firm and after giving them a reasonable opportunity, refuse to make suitable amendment in the record, until the partners of the firm, pay such penalty, not exceeding Rs. 10/- per day. As Registrar may determine in respect of the period between the date of expiry of the period specified in those sections and/or as the case may be and the date of making amendment in the entries relating to the firm. On a combined reading of Sections 62 and 69 of Mah. State Amendment, it is now mandatory w.e.f. 1-1-1985 for the partners to intimate the changes in the name of address of partners within a period of 90 days from the date of making such alterations, to avoid payment of penalty. 6. The importance of the intimations and notices as contemplated under Sections 61, 62 and 63 of the Act in the prescribed form need to be followed by the concerned person. This means intimation or notice of change of location of the principal place of the firm, address of business, the name of partner and his permanent address need to be given. This was the position prior to the Mah. Amendment. There were no prescribed time or clauses of penalty e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e details within 90 days. Even after considering the provisions of the Partnership Act and related rules, there is nothing to suggest that the word "may" was intended to read as "shall" prior to the Mah. State Amendment. There was no such day-to-day penalty, as now provided by the amendment. 10. "When the words of status are clear, plain or unambiguous, and reasonably susceptible of only one meaning, the Courts are bound to give effect to that meaning irrespective of the consequences. The intention of the legislature is primarily to be gathered from the language used. The attention should be paid to what has been said in the statute as also to what has not been said" [2003]2SCR933 , J.P. Bansal v. State of Raj as than (as followed in AIR2005SC294 , State of Jharkhand v. Govind Singh. 11. The Apex Court while dealing with the construction of a penal statute, has observed in Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti v. Pilibhit Pantnagar Beej Ltd. (2004)1SCC391 ) as under: 58. In the case of London and North Eastern Rly. Co. v. Berriman 1946 AC 278 : (1946) 1 All ER 255 (HL), Lord Simonds quoted with approval All ER p. 270 CD the following observations of Lord Esher, M.R. in the cas....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tive, either expressly or by necessary implication. Penal statutes which create new offences are always prospective, but penal statutes which create disabilities, though ordinarily interpreted prospectively, are sometimes interpreted retrospectively when there is a clear intendment that they are to be applied to past events. The reason why penal statutes are so construed was stated by Erie, C.J. in Midland Rly. Co. v. Pye CBNS at p. 191. (1861) 10 CBNS 179 : 142 ER 419 : 30 CJCP 314 : in the following words: Those whose duty is to administer the law very properly guard against giving to an Act of Parliament a retrospective operation, unless the intention of the legislature that it should be so construed is expressed in clear, plain and unambiguous language; because it manifestly shocks one's sense of justice that an act, legal at the time of doing it, should be made unlawful by some new enactment. This principle has now been recognised by our Constitution and established as a constitutional restriction on legislative power". As observed by Hidayatullah, J., in State of Maharashtra v. Vishnu Ramchandra 1961CriLJ450 . 14. In Baleshwar Bagarti v. Bhagirathi Dass ILR....