Silver Sands Residency vs Registrar Of Firms And Ors

The petitioner is a partnership firm represented by its Managing Partner. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking to set aside Ext.P7 order

of the 1st respondent-Registrar of Firms whereby the application submitted by the petitioner for change of constitution of the partnership stands

rejected.

The petitioner states that the Firm is involved in Abkari business and it is a closely held partnership of family members. One Partner Mr. Boban

died and his wife Mrs. Dhanya Boban was inducted as Partner. The said Dhanya Boban did not attend the meetings. She was reluctant to concede to

the decisions taken by the partnership. Consequently, a notice was issued and Dhanya Boban was expelled from the partnership.

After complying with all statutory requirements, the petitioner applied for registration of a reconstituted Firm before the 1st respondent-Registrar of

Firms. The 1st respondent, however, rejected the application as per Ext.P7 on the ground that the ousted partner had filed complaint against the Firm

and that she has not signed the application for reconstitution of the Firm.

The aforesaid Dhanya Boban was impleaded as additional 2nd respondent in the writ petition. The additional 2nd respondent filed a counter affidavit

stating that her signature was forged by the writ petitioner and a fabricated document for effecting reconstitution of the firm was made. After the

death of husband, the additional 2nd respondent and her children are entitled to a share of profit. The writ petition is liable to be dismissed, contended

the additional 2nd respondent.

I have heard Advocate Mahendranath V., learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader Smt. Rashmi K.M. representing the 1st

respondent and K. Ramanadhan, learned counsel for the additional 2nd respondent.

The reconstitution of the partnership is seriously disputed by the additional 2nd respondent. According to the writ petitioner, the existing partners

have a right to oust the additional 2nd respondent from the partnership and reconstitute the Firm. However, the additional 2nd respondent will dispute

the said claim and would contend that she cannot be ousted from the partnership unilaterally.

Since the issue involves disputed questions of fact, this Court will not be justified in interfering the matter and passing any orders under Article 226

of the Constitution of India.

In the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of relegating the petitioner to approach civil court or any other appropriate forum, if the petitioner is

so advised.