TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (3) TMI 249
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of Firm "M/s Universal Promoters and Developers" of the petitioners; d) Issue any other appropriate writ, order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court which may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the present case; e) All cost of the writ petition in favour of the petitioners." 2. By way of the present petition, setting aside of orders dated 17.02.2014 and 05.01.2015 have been sought. Vide order dated 17.02.2014, respondent No. 3 (Deputy Commissioner, Industries (Firms)) issued an order setting aside and cancelling the Registration of petitioner No. 1 (partnership firm), on a complaint/application made by respondent No. 5-Ashok Kataria alleging fraud, and subsequently, on an application filed by petitioner No. 4 seeking review of the said order, the same was dismissed vide order dated 05.01.2015 passed by respondent No. 4, Registrar of Firms. The primary contention on behalf of the petitioners is that the respondent No. 4, Registrar of Firms, had no power to cancel the Registration Certificate issued to petitioner No. 1-partnership firm. 3. The relevant portion of the impugned order dated 17.02.2014 passed by Deputy Commissioner, Firms/respondent....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....partner in the above said firm when she has retired on 31.03.2006. In view of the aforesaid facts, Mr. Sandeep Sharma is left as a single partner which does not fulfil the definition of partnership under Section 4 of the Partnership Act, 1932. Subsequent rectification cannot be accepted in Form A when Smt. Rekha Sharma was not a partner on the date of application and registration, so how could the firm be registered with one partner under the Partnership Act, 1932?. It is evident that the registration certificate No. S-1003/2006 obtained by M/s Universal Promoters and Builders was obtained by concealing true facts and it seems that the subsequent amendments by this department made without due diligence and without proper examination of facts. documents filed by the firm and the legal position under Section 4 and Section 59 of the Partnership Act, 1932. The very registration of the partnership firm was void ab initio. Therefore, subsequent amendments for change in constitution under Section 63 of the said Act are devoid by merit. Therefore, the registration of the firm bearing no. S-1003/2006 dated 08.05.2006 is set-aside. Necessary entry in this effect may be made in the r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tus officio. (05) Application being without merits is DISMISSED. (K. MAHESH) REGISTRAR OF FIRMS" BRIEF BACKGROUND 5. Petitioner No. 1, M/s Universal Promoters and Developers, was a partnership firm constituted between petitioner No. 2, Sandeep Sharma, and petitioner No. 4, Rekha Sharma, vide partnership deed dated 01.01.2006. Petitioner No. 3, Mahender Kaushik, was inducted as a partner in the aforesaid firm vide a supplementary partnership deed dated 17.02.2006 executed amongst the partners. It is stated in the petition that, thereafter, petitioner No. 4 decided to resign from the firm on the assurance that petitioner No. 3, newly inducted partner, will settle the accounts, and it was agreed, as a pre- condition, that he will make an investment in business of the firm by 15.04.2006. Petitioner No. 4 resigned from the firm and an amended partnership deed was executed on 31.03.2006. It is further stated that petitioner No. 3 failed to honour his commitment, and in view of the same, the amended partnership deed executed on 31.03.2006 was not given effect to. 6. The partnership deed dated 01.01.2006 executed between petitioner Nos. 2 and 4 was registered vide R....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e of registration conferred on any partnership under IPA. It is further submitted that Special Commissioner does not have power to set aside the order passed by Registrar of Firms, and Special Commissioner while exercising review has, in fact, exercised a power which has not been conferred upon him by any statute or otherwise. 10. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has drawn attention of this Court to Section 64 of the IPA which reads as under:- "64. Rectification of mistakes.-(1) The Registrar shill have power at all times to rectify any mistake in order to bring the entry in the Register of Firms relating to any firm into conformity with the documents relating to that firm filed under this Chapter. (2) On application made by all the parties who have signed any document relating to a firm filed under this Chapter, the Registrar may rectify any mistake in such document or in the record or note thereof made in the Register of Firms." 11. It was contended on behalf of the petitioners that only power given to the Registrar, after issuance of certificate of Registration under Section 59 of the IPA, under the foregoing provisions is to rectify a mistake. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....entary and amended partnership deeds. It is, thus, submitted that on account of the same, there is no fraud or mis-statement given initially by petitioner No. 1-firm to cause any loss or damage to society or public at large. Therefore, it is submitted that, at best, it was a case of correcting the records which was permissible in terms of Section 64 of the IPA, as no power is vested in the Registrar of Firms to recall the registration. 12. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners further contended that respondent No. 5 had no locus-standi to have filed a complaint, which was entertained by respondent Nos. 1 to 4. Attention of this Court has been drawn to Rule 6 of the Delhi Partnership (Registration of Firms Rules, 1972), which reads as under:- "DELHI PARTNERSHIP (REGISTRATION OF FIRMS) RULES, 1972 Rule 6. Procedure on disputes -Where any partner or other person interested makes a protest in writing to Registrar disputing any entry made in the register of firms, the Registrar shall record such protests and make a reference thereto in "Red ink" in the remarks column against the disputed entry." It is, therefore, submitted that as respondent No. 5 was alien ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Raj 49; ii. Shri Balaji Marbels Mines v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL NO. 109/2010 dated 16.04.2010; iii. Supreme Tech Engineering v. Registrar of Firms (Vadodara Circle) and Ors. 2012 SCC OnLine Guj 1412; iv. Areness Foundation v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr. 2018 SCC OnLine Del 2004: AIR 2019 Del 59; v. Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation (Gwalior) M.P. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh (2018) 4 SCC 494; 15. In view of the aforesaid submissions, it is prayed that the impugned orders be set aside and the registration of petitioner No. 1-Firm be restored and revived. CONTENTIONS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT NOS. 1 TO 4 16. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 has submitted that, as per Section 58 of the IPA in order to effect registration of firm, a statement signed by all partners is required to be filed with Registrar of Firms. Attention of this Court has been drawn towards Section 58 of the IPA in this regard. It is submitted that, in the present case, Form-I was submitted on 20.04.2006 carrying the signatures of petitioner Nos. 2 and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed out that the same requires the signatures of all of the partners or their authorised agents and the same would be in presence of a witness who must be a Gazetted Officer, Advocate, Attorney, Vakil, Magistrate or Registered Accountant and on account of the same, it is submitted that the contents of this Form-I are akin to that of an affidavit. 19. It is further submitted that, if the documents submitted before Registrar are found to be fraudulent or suffered from material concealment of facts, the Registrar in exercise of his powers under Section 64 of the IPA can cancel the registration of the firm. Reliance has also been placed on the following precedents:- i. Durga Prasad Sarawagi & Ors. v. Registrar of Firms & Ors, paragraph 10 (Division Bench of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court); ii. Rakesh Dhariwal v. Balaji Marble Mines, Makrana & Ors., paragraphs 11 to 15 (Division Bench of the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court); iii. Dwarika Prasad Agarwal & Brothers v. Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits 2014 (2) ADJ 524, paragraphs 36 to 38, 41 and 42 (Single Judge of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court); 20. Learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 has,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er giving opportunity of hearing to the contending parties, is an act of expediency and not a quasi- judicial act dictated by rules. (iv) the provision of section 21 of the General Clauses Act and/or section 23 of the Assam General Clauses Act, in the absence of an express power of cancellation of certificate of registration (CoR) under the Societies Registration Act, is available empowering the Registrar to order cancellation, as above." It is, thus, prayed that since Registrar had power to cancel/rescind the registration certificate, the impugned orders are not to be interfered, and the present petition be dismissed. CONTENTIONS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT NO. 5 21. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 5 had drawn the attention of this Court to a Board Resolution filed on behalf of the petitioner No. 1 showing itself to be a private limited company, and signed by Mahinder Kaushik (petitioner No. 3) and Sandeep Kumar (petitioner No. 2) as Directors. It is submitted that the aforesaid Board Resolution was filed by the petitioner No. 1-firm in a suit instituted on its behalf against the respondent No. 5. 22. It is the case of the said respondent....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....P. (2011) 3 SCC 193; ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS 26. Heard learned counsels for the petitioners, respondent Nos. 1 to 4, and respondent No. 5, and perused the records. 27. At the very outset, it is pertinent to note that, the impugned order dated 17.02.2014 has been passed by Deputy Commissioner Firms and not Registrar (Firms). The impugned order passed by Deputy Commissioner Firms, in fact, records that a complaint received was at his Office and after hearing the submissions by the parties and perusing the records, it was thought to be fit case of 'REVIEW' of registration granted by the department to petitioner No. 1-Firm on 08.05.2006. 28. Section 57 of the IPA reads as under:- "57. Appointment of Registrars.-(1) The State Government may appoint Registrars of Firms for the purposes of this Act, and may define the areas within which they shall exercise their powers and perform their duties. (2) Every Registrar shall be deemed to be a public servant within the meaning of section 21 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)." 29. In pursuance of the aforesaid, the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi had issued a notification dated 26.03.2010 bearing no. CI/Admn. RFS....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....resaid notification. The said notification also records that the 9 Registrars, i.e., the Sub-Divisional Magistrates, would be under day-to- day control administrative control and supervision of respective Deputy Commissioner, Revenue Areas; however, Secretary-cum-Commissioner of Industry shall be overall administrative head of the Office of Registrar Firms for the purposes of respective acts. 31. Thus, clearly in terms of the aforesaid notification, the Registrar for the purposes of the present Act would be the SDM (Headquarter) of the respective revenue areas of NCT of Delhi and not the Deputy Commissioner of the said area. Power exercised by Registrar of Firms is not delegated but originated by virtue of Section 57 of the IPA. As pointed hereinabove, in the present case, the Deputy Commissioner-Firms had passed the impugned order in his purported exercise of power of 'REVIEW' which is not provided for under the IPA and the Rules framed thereunder by Administrator of Delhi in exercise of powers under Section 71(2) of the IPA. In fact, the entire Act and the Rules are conspicuously silent with regard to provisions of any appeal/review of orders of action taken by the Registrar o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ain any of the following words, namely:- "Crown", "Emperor", "Empress", "Empire", "Imperial", "King", "Queen", "Royal", or words expressing or implying the sanction, approval or patronage of *** Government ***,except [when the State Government] signifies [its] consent to the use of such words as part of the firm name by order in writing ***. 59. Registration.-Where the Registrar is satisfied that the provisions of section 58 have been duly complied with, he shall record an entry of the statement in a register called the Register of Firms, and shall file the statement. 60. Recording of alterations in firm name and principal place of business.- (1) When an alteration is made in the firm name or in the location of the principal place of business of a registered firm, a statement may be sent to the Registrar accompanied by the prescribed fee, specifying the alteration, and signed and verified in the manner required under section 58. (2) When the Registrar is satisfied that the provisions of sub-section (1) have been duly complied with, he shall amend the entry relating to the firm in the Register of Firms in accordance with the statement, and shall f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f Firms shall, as against any person by whom or on whose behalf such statement, intimation or notice was signed, be conclusive proof of any fact therein stated. (2) A certified copy of an entry relating to a firm in the Register of Firms may be produced in proof of the fact of the registration of such firm, and of the contents of any statement, intimation or notice recorded or noted therein. **** **** **** 70. Penalty for furnishing false particulars.-Any person who signs any statement, amending statement, notice or intimation under this Chapter containing any particular which he knows to be false or does not believe to be true, or containing particulars which he knows to be incomplete or does not believe to be complete, shall be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to three months, or with fine, or with both." Further, Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, reads as under:- "21. Power to issue, to include power to add to, amend, vary or rescind notifications, orders, rules or bye-laws.-Where, by any [Central Act] or Regulations a power to [issue notifications,] orders, rules or bye-laws is conferred, then that power inclu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the entry in the Register of the Firms relating to any firm into conformity with the documents relating to that firm filed under Chapter VII of the Act in exercise of the power conferred u/S. 64, the Registrar is empowered to rectify any mistake made by himself or on application made by all the parties who have signed any document relating to the firm filed under the said Chapter. 20. A bare perusal of Section 64 of the Act makes it abundantly clear that the Registrar can exercise the power only for rectification of the mistake so as to bring the entries made into conformity with the documents relating to the firm. In considered opinion of this Court, while exercising the power of rectification of mistakes, the Registrar who is only a registering authority authorised to record the entry in respect of constitution of the firm, its dissolution etc. has no authority to enter into roving and fishing inquiry into the rival claims of the parties and pronounce upon the genuineness or validity of the documents produced. Suffice it to say that if the alteration recorded in the register of the firms is in conformity with the statement made and documents produced in terms of the pro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nership deeds. If a document is claimed to be void or voidable, the same could always be so adjudged by the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction in terms of the provisions of Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act. Moreover, as per the provisions of Section 65 of the Act, a court deciding any matter relating to the registered firm may direct that the Registrar shall make any amendment in the entry in the Register of Firms relating to such firm which is consequential upon its decision and the Registrar shall amend the entry accordingly. This Court is informed that the respondent No. 1 has already filed a civil suit before the District Judge, Jaisalmer for cancellation of reconstituted partnership deeds. Suffice it to say that if the reconstituted partnership deeds are declared to be void and cancelled by the civil Court, it is always open to the respondent No. 1 to make an appropriate application before the Registrar for amendment in the entry in terms of provisions of Section 65 of the Act. 28. Thus, in view of the discussion above, in considered opinion of this Court, the proceeding initiated by the Registrar for cancellation of the entries recorded in the Registrar of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dent no. 1 in supporting the order passed by respondent no. 1. 23. The decisions cited at the bar, on behalf of the petitioner, of Rajasthan High Court and Delhi High Court would go to show that the facts and ratio of those cases will have applicability to the facts and circumstances of the present case also. The decision cited at the bar on behalf of the petitioner have already been listed hereinabove and therefore, in order to avoid repetition, the Court would not elaborately delve thereupon. Suffice it to say here that the view expressed by the Rajasthan High Court in case of "Sri Lakha Granites v. Eklavya Singh", reported in 2010 (0) ALJ-RJ 1823320 and Delhi High Court in case of "Raman Kapur v. Government Of The National Capital Territory Of Delhi", reported in 2002 (0) ALJ-DL 1319193, is the ratio which this Court would follow, as the facts of those cases are much more similar and similar to the facts of the present case. The Court is unable to accept the submission of learned advocate for respondent no. 2 that the factum of resignation being not accepted on account of documentary evidence would be of no consequence, as this Court is persuaded to hold that so far as ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of Air Line Pilots Association of India (supra) relied upon by Mr. Singh are concerned, the same are on the following propositions: (1) Even if there is no express power under the Registration Act to cancel/recall the registration of an instrument, it can still be cancelled/recalled by exercising inherent powers, if the registration is obtained by fraud. (2) The source of power to recall a registration on the grounds mentioned in impugned circular is also found in Section 82 of the Act. (3) The power to recall a registration by the registering authority on account of fraud as contemplated in the impugned circular can be independently traced to Section 21 of the General Clauses Act. 18. Suffice to say in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Satya Pal Anand (supra) it must be held that Registrar has no powers under Section 82 of the Registration Act nor can invoke Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, to annul a registration of a document. Accordingly, the circular dated July 13, 2016 to the extent it empowers the Registrar to annul a registered document is ultra vires the Registration Act, 1908 and is set aside." d) Relianc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....wo questions of law have been referred by a Single Bench of this Court for a decision by a larger Bench. The matter is placed before this Full Bench, although the same could have been answered by a Division Bench of this Court. Be that as it may, the two questions are: (17) Whether registration of a Society by the Registrar of Firms & Societies, Assam under section 3 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 cannot be cancelled once registered?" 37. Answering the aforesaid reference, the Full Bench relied upon a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Indian National Congress (supra) and observed and held as under:- "11. In Shree Sidhbali Steels Limited (supra) the Supreme Court explained that section 21 of the General Clauses Act, which is of general application, is based on the principle that where there is power to create, it includes the power to destroy as well as the power to add to, amend, vary or rescind; where there is a power conferred on any authority to do a particular act, such power carries with it the power to withdraw, modify amend or cancel the act, which is exercisable in the like manner and subject to like conditions, if any, attached with the exe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....act according to the rules, whereas the authority which acts administratively is dictated by the policy and expediency. 14. Section 29A of the Representation of the People Act, in the light of the above principles of law, was answered to be an order of the Election Commission which is neither a legislative nor an executive order but a quasi-judicial order. Such conclusion was drawn upon due examination of section 29A. The Supreme Court made reference to the provisions under the various sub-sections of section 29A and explained that it provides as who can make an application for registration as a political party; the making of application to the Commission; what would be the contents of the application; provision obligating the Election Commission to consider all particulars in its possession and any other necessary and relevant factors and deciding either to register the association or body as a political party or not after giving the representatives of the association reasonable opportunity of being heard, and thereupon, the requirement to communicate its decision to the political party. The Supreme Court held that from the provisions under the various sub-sections of sec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he rules, whereas the authority which acts administratively is dictated by policy and expediency. Without any doubt, the act of cancellation of CoR is not dictated by the Act. It is absolutely in the realm of expediency where, on a complaint that a CoR issued to a party had been obtained by fraud, misrepresentation and/or on any sufficient reasons, the Registrar hears the parties and arrives at a decision. In the scheme of the Societies Registration Act, read with the Assam Act, no procedure is laid down as to the exercise of power of rescission or cancellation of a CoR. Notwithstanding such absence, the compliance of the principles of natural justice is inherently implicit and has to be read into in the exercise of the power of rescission or cancellation so as to sub-serve the very principles underlying section 21 of the General Clauses Act. The above decision of the Registrar is not the fall-out of any act which the statute specifically empowers the Registrar to do. It is an act of expediency on the part of the Registrar, which may involve a lis or contest between the contending parties. The presence of a lis or one or two attributes of a quasi-judicial act would not make an admi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ti High Court in Atowar Rahman (supra), was whether the act of grant of registration is an administrative or quasi-judicial function. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Indian National Congress (supra) had observed and held as under:- "20. On the argument of parties, the question that arises for our consideration is, whether the Election Commission, in exercise of its powers under Section 29-A of the Act, acts administratively or quasi-judicially. We shall first advert to the argument raised by learned counsel for the respondent to the effect that in the absence of any lis or contest between the two contending parties before the Election Commission under Section 29-A of the Act, the function discharged by it is administrative in nature and not a quasi-judicial one. The dictionary meaning of the word quasi is "not exactly" and it is just in between a judicial and administrative function. It is true, in many cases, the statutory authorities were held to be quasi-judicial authorities and decisions rendered by them were regarded as quasi-judicial, where there was contest between the two contending parties and the statutory authority was required to adjudicate upon the rights of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....utshell, what was held in the aforesaid decision was, where a statutory authority is empowered to take a decision which affects the rights of persons and such an authority is under the relevant law required to make an enquiry and hear the parties, such authority is quasi-judicial and decision rendered by it is a quasi-judicial act. 23. In Province of Bombay v. Khushaldas S. Advani [1950 SCC 551 : AIR 1950 SC 222 : 1950 SCR 621] it was held thus: (AIR p. 260, para 173) "(i) that if a statute empowers an authority, not being a court in the ordinary sense, to decide disputes arising out of a claim made by one party under the statute which claim is opposed by another party and to determine the respective rights of the contesting parties who are opposed to each other there is a lis and prima facie, and in the absence of anything in the statute to the contrary it is the duty of the authority to act judicially and the decision of the authority is a quasi-judicial act; and (ii) that if a statutory authority has power to do any act which will prejudicially affect the subject, then, although there are not two parties apart from the authority and the contest is between the a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....w, but also to statutory tribunals which do not have power of review. Thus, fraud or forgery practised by a political party while obtaining a registration, if comes to the notice of the Election Commission, it is open to the Commission to deregister such a political party." 39. In Atowar Rahman (supra), after discussing the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Indian National Congress (supra), it was held that unlike the power of Election Commission under Section 29A of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951, the power of Registrar under Section 3 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860, was not quasi-judicial but purely an administrative act. However, learned Full Bench, after determining that the power exercised by Registrar under Section 3 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860, is purely an administrative act, further proceeded to determine, whether the act of cancellation of registration by Registrar would amount to a quasi-judicial act. Learned Full Bench held that the Societies Registration Act does not prescribe any procedure requiring the statutory authority to act judicially under the statute for cancelling a certificate of registration. It was observed that,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Registrar in case a dispute arises in the following terms:- "71. Power to make rules.- **** **** **** (2) The State Government may [also] make rules- **** **** **** (d) regulating the procedure of the Registrar when disputes arise;" 40.1. Under the present Act, as already noted hereinbefore, Rules, i.e., Delhi Partnership (Registration of Firms), Rules 1972, have already been made by Administrator of Delhi in exercise of power under Section 71(2) of the IPA. Rules 6, 7, 9 of the said Rules reads as under:- "Rule 6. Procedure on disputes. Where any partner or other person interested makes a protest in writing to Registrar disputing any entry made in the register of firms, the Registrar shall record such protests and make a reference thereto in "Red ink" in the remarks column against the disputed entry. Rule 7. Examination of documents received by the Registrar. On receipt of every statement, intimation, notice or any other document required by the Act to be filed or registered in his office, the Registrar shall examine it, and if it is found to be defective or incomplete in any of the particulars req....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erein while interpreting the Rule 8 of Bengal Partnership Rules, 1933, enacted in State of West Bengal in exercise of power under Section 71(2) of the IPA, akin to Rule 9 of the Delhi Partnership (Registration of Firms), Rules 1972, it was observed and held as under:- "13. Then Rule 8 provides: "The Registrar may in his discretion institute such enquiries or make such investigation in respect of any matter as may in his opinion be necessary for the proper performance of his duties and administration of the Act, especially when a dispute arises amongst the several partners of a firm. The Registrar may in his discretion call upon any of the partners or all of them to produce any original deed, document or such other evidence as he thinks fit." This Rule appears to indicate that a discretion is given to the Registrar to make enquiries. It also makes it clear that in enquiring the Registrar acts in quasi-judicial manner in the sense that he should call for the original deeds and documents or other evidence as he thinks fit. The Registrar did nothing of the kind in this case. He did nothing at the stage before he made the impugned entry "dissolved" nor did he make the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mended and supplementary deeds are dated 31.03.2006 and 17.02.2006 respectively. Thus, at the time of registration, there was no misrepresentation or concealment made by the petitioner No. 1 or its partners (petitioner Nos. 2 and 4) while submitting the documents before Registrar of Firms. It is the case of the petitioners that a resignation letter dated 31.03.2006 of petitioner No. 4 was not acted upon by the partners at that stage for the reasons as stated by them. In these circumstances, the resignation letter dated 31.03.2006 was brought into effect by the petitioners only when it was submitted before Registrar of Companies on 02.12.2010. By way of aforesaid Form V, the petitioners gave a full disclosure with regard to the resignation letter, amended partnership deed and the supplementary partnership deed. It is important to note that had the petitioners not filed the resignation letter dated 31.03.2006 of petitioner No. 4 then, the same would have never seen the light of the day. It is the case of respondent Nos. 1 to 4 since the resignation was dated 31.03.2006, petitioner No. 4 could not have signed the deed dated 31.03.2006 which was finally registered, and therefore, it am....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rcised. But non-disclosure of a fact not required by a statute to be disclosed may not amount to fraud. Even in commercial transactions non-disclosure of every fact does not vitiate the agreement, 'In a contract every person must look for himself and ensures that he acquires the information necessary to avoid bad bargain' [Anson's Law of Contract]. In public law the duty is not to deceive. For instance non-disclosure of any reason in the application under Section 21 of the Act about its need after expiry of period or failure to give reason that the premises shall be required by son, daughter or any other family member does not result in misrepresentation or fraud. It is not misrepresentation under Section 21 to state that the premises shall be needed by the landlord after expiry of the lease even though the premises in occupation of the landlord on the date of application or, after expiry of period were or may be sufficient. A non-disclosure of fact which is not required by law to be disclosed does not amount to misrepresentation." (emphasis supplied) 22. In light of the aforementioned judgment, the disclosure of incorrect facts by the President of the society....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bilateral in character but whether the letter dated 9-1-1999 could be treated or held to be a letter of resignation or relinquishment of the office, so as to sever her services once and for all. The letter cannot be construed, in our view, to convey any spontaneous intention to give up or relinquish her office accompanied by any act of relinquishment. To constitute a "resignation", it must be unconditional and with an intention to operate as such. " (emphasis supplied) Thus, in view of the fact that, the resignation letter dated 31.03.2006 was never acted upon, the initial registration dated 08.05.2006, therefore, cannot be faulted with. 46. Thus, in these circumstances, what is borne from the records is that the Form No. V filed on behalf of the partnership firm in 2010 for bringing on record change in the constitution of the firm was defective inasmuch as the resignation letter and the deeds were in contradiction with the previous documents already filed with the respondent Nos. 1 to 4. For the subsequent change, the parties could have brought on record a contemporaneous resignation letter from petitioner No. 4 as well as the supplementary and amended partnership d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pplication for declaring partnership deeds as null and void or cancelling the entries made on the basis of such partnership deed. Similarly, in Supreme Tech Engineering (supra), it was held that while undertaking the procedures for rectifying the mistakes the statute does not provide for any elaborate scope of inquiry and it was held as under:- "21. .... While undertaking the procedure of rectifying the mistake, as could be seen from the procedure itself, at least the statute does not lay down any elaborate scope of enquiry which would render justification to exercise of enquiring into the disputed claims, which otherwise can never be subject matter of adjudication by the administrative authority. ...." (emphasis supplied) 49. The judgment given by the Hon'ble Full Bench of Gauhati High Court in Atowar Rahman (supra) was in respect of the provisions under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, which, as already noted hereinbefore, is distinguishable with respect to the provisions and the scheme of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932. 50. In view of the above findings, issue of locus standi of respondent No. 5 to file a complaint before Registrar of Firms needs n....