Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.31 seconds)The Indian Partnership Act, 1932
Section 63 in The Indian Partnership Act, 1932 [Entire Act]
Section 59 in The Indian Partnership Act, 1932 [Entire Act]
Section 60 in The Indian Partnership Act, 1932 [Entire Act]
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 69 in The Indian Partnership Act, 1932 [Entire Act]
Article 227 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Harijan Boot House vs Registrar Of Firms on 11 September, 1987
In the same vein, the Gujarat High Court in
Harijan Boot House v. Registrar of Firms,
Ahmedabad City, Ahmedabad1, has authoritatively held
that the Partnership Act does not prescribe any rigid or
inflexible timeline for seeking registration. The Court
observed that the legislative scheme consciously permits
registration "at any time", thereby treating registration as
a continuing statutory entitlement rather than a time-
bound obligation. It was further held that mere delay,
however long, cannot be construed as a disqualification,
particularly when the statute itself does not create such a
bar. The Gujarat High Court went on to hold that denial of
1
(1988) 171 ITR 549
Subhash Chandra Kesarwani vs Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies ... on 5 February, 2003
In further reinforcement of the above principle,
it is profitable to refer to the judgment of the Allahabad
High Court in Subhash Chandra Kesarwani v.
Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits,
WRIT-C No. 15385 of 2017, wherein the Court has
unequivocally held that the Registrar, while exercising
powers under the Act, does not function as a Court or
adjudicatory authority but discharges a limited
administrative and ministerial role. The Allahabad High
Court emphatically observed that once the statutory