Registrar Can’t Insist Upon Production Of Trade Licence For Registration Of Partnership Firm Of Advocates: Calcutta High Court
The Calcutta High Court was considering the issue of registration of an unregistered partnership firm of advocates.
The Calcutta High Court has held that the Registrar under the Partnership Act cannot insist upon the production and/or submission of a trade licence for registration of an unregistered partnership firm which is formed for carrying on the professional practice of law.
The High Court was considering a writ petition whereby the petitioner sought a direction upon the respondent authorities- Registrar, Office of the Registrar of Firms, Societies and Non-Trading Corporations, West Bengal, to accept, process and register the application for registration submitted in respect of M/s Pinava Legal, an unregistered partnership firm of advocates without insisting upon a trade license.
The Single Bench of Justice Bivas Pattanayak held, “In aforesaid backdrop, this court is of the view that the registering authority particularly respondent no.2, the Registrar, Office of the Registrar of Firms, Societies and Non-Trading Corporations, West Bengal cannot insist upon production and/or submission of trade licence for registration of the firm, M/s Pinava Legal, an unregistered partnership firm which is formed for carrying on professional practice of law.”
The Petitioner appeared in person while Additional Government Pleader Kunaljit Bhattacharjee represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
The petition was filed by an advocate in his individual capacity as a partner of M/s Pinava Legal, an unregistered partnership firm of advocates challenging the repeated refusal of the respondent authorities to register the said firm under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, on the ground of nonproduction/submission of the trade licence of the said firm. As per the petitioner, M/s Pinava Legal, being an unregistered partnership firm of advocates, applied for registration of the said partnership firm before the registering authority. Preliminary objections which were raised by the registrar. The petitioner claimed that the registering authority had no power to refuse registration if the application in the prescribed form and the provisions of section 58 of the Act of 1932 were complied with.
Arguments
It was the case of the petitioner that the refusal to register the partnership firm by the second respondent Registrar, on the ground of non-submission of the trade licence, was arbitrary and should not be insisted upon.
Reasoning
Referring to Section 58 of the Indian Partnership Act of 1932, the Bench stated that the same lays down the mode of making an application for registration of a partnership firm. It provides that a statement in the prescribed form and accompanied by the prescribed fee giving the particulars as provided thereunder in clauses (a) to (f) be submitted before the Registrar of the area in which any place of business of the firm is situated or proposed to be situated.
“Thus Section 59 casts a duty upon the Registrar to register a partnership firm after being satisfied that the requirements of Section 58 are complied with by the applicants. In the instant case, since Section 58 has been duly complied with by the applicants i.e the partnership firm, the respondent no.2, Registrar is under statutory obligation to cause registration of the firm”, it added.
Holding that the Registrar cannot insist upon production and/or submission of a trade licence for registration of an unregistered partnership firm formed for carrying on professional practice of law, the Bench directed the Registrar to process the application of the petitioner for registration and cause its registration within two weeks.
Cause Title: Dr Arjun Chowdhury v. The State of West Bengal & Ors ( Case No.: WPA/805/2026)
Appearance
Petitioner: Petitioner (in-person)
Respondent: Additional Government Pleader Kunaljit Bhattacharjee, Advocate Esha Acharya