SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1987 Supreme(Guj) 87

A.P.RAVANI
HARIJAN BOOT HOUSE, AHMEDABAD – Appellant
Versus
REGISTRAR OF FIRMS – Respondent


Advocates Appeared: H.B.ANTANI, P.V.Nanavati

A. P. RAVANI, J.

( 1 ) SHOULD the application for recording of changes in the constitution of a firm be submitted within a specified time limit and should the same be submitted in person and not by post? The aforesaid question has arisen in the context of the facts narrated harainbelow.

( 2 ) PETITIONER firm stated its business some time in the year 1946. The firm got itself registered with the Registrar of Firms on 10/03/1955 Thereafter a partner Balvantbhai Dahyabhai Modi died on 5/05/1976 Thus there was a change in the constitution of the firm. But the same was not recorded in the register of firms with the Registrar of Firms. Again another partner Narshibhai Chandulal Nanavati retired from the firm on 27/06/1986 This change in the constitution of the firm was also not got recorded with the Registrar of Firms. However the registration of the firm as originally recorded on 10/03/1955 continued.

( 3 ) THE petitioner firm submitted an application on 27/06/1986 by registered post and requested that the aforesaid changes in the constitution of the firm be noted in the relevant records of the Registrar of firms. The application was rejected by the office of Registrar of firms on the gr











Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top