1974 (2) TMI 93 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of Rule 4(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Partnership (Registration of Firms) Rules, 1957.
2. Authority of the Registrar of Firms to reject notices based on the 15-day time limit.
3. Scope of the rule-making power under Section 71 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of Rule 4(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Partnership (Registration of Firms) Rules, 1957:
The primary issue in this writ petition is the validity of Rule 4(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Partnership (Registration of Firms) Rules, 1957. The petitioner contends that Rule 4(2), which mandates that every statement, intimation, or notice relating to a firm must be given to the Registrar within 15 days from the date of occurrence, is ultra vires the Indian Partnership Act, 1932. The petitioner argues that Section 63(1) of the Act, which governs the notification of changes in the constitution of a registered firm, does not prescribe any time limit for such notifications. The petitioner asserts that the rule-making authority under Section 71 of the Act does not extend to prescribing a time limit for submitting notices.

2. Authority of the Registrar of Firms to Reject Notices Based on the 15-Day Time Limit:
The Registrar of Firms rejected the petitioner's notice of change in the constitution of the firm on the grounds that it was not submitted within the 15-day period as required by Rule 4(2). The petitioner argues that the Registrar has no power to return the notice on such grounds, as Section 63(1) of the Act mandates the Registrar to make a record of the notice and file it, without imposing any time limit for the submission of such notices. The petitioner emphasizes that no rule can be framed beyond the scope of the section itself.

3. Scope of the Rule-Making Power Under Section 71 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932:
The petitioner contends that Section 71 of the Act, which empowers the State Government to make rules, does not authorize the prescription of a time limit for submitting notices of changes in the firm's constitution. Specifically, Section 71(2)(b) and (c) allow the State Government to prescribe the form of statements, intimations, and notices, and the mode of making entries in the Register of Firms, but do not include the authority to prescribe a time limit. The court agrees with this interpretation, stating that the words "manner and form" refer only to the mode of doing the thing and do not include the time for doing it.

Judgment:
The court holds that Rule 4(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Partnership (Registration of Firms) Rules, 1957, is beyond the rule-making power of the State Government under Section 71 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932. The rule is declared ultra vires and is struck down. Consequently, the proceedings of the Registrar of Firms rejecting the petitioner's notice based on the 15-day time limit are quashed. The Registrar is directed to make a record of the notice in the entry relating to the firm in the Register of Firms and file the notice along with the statement relating to the firm filed under Section 59 of the Act. The writ petition is allowed with costs, and the Advocate's fee is set at Rs. 100.