Back
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
MANISH CHOUDHURY, J.
Bharati Chutia W/o Sri Pranjal Chutia – Appellant
Versus
Oil India Limited – Respondent
WP(C) 376 of 2022
Decided on : 31-10-2022
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Cancellation of Registration - Renew Earlier Registration Number - Aggrieved by impugned order whereby registration of a firm, has been cancelled - Sought for a direction or order to respondent authorities to renew earlier registration number – It cannot be said that decision for cancellation of registration was taken in violation of principles of natural justice and without affording any prior opportunity of hearing to petitioner. Para 13
Finding of the Court :
Only consequence in case of breach of such a nature, as per terms and conditions of contractual arrangement between parties, was cancellation of registration of party breaching term - From such standpoint, steps of cancellation of registration taken by respondent Oil India Limited cannot be termed as arbitrary - Contractual arrangement existing between petitioner and respondent Oil India Limited was in realm of private law and their relationship was not governed by any kind of statutory contract - In case of any dispute arising out of such a contract same is not to be agitated in a writ petition instituted under Article 226 of Constitution of India and same can only be agitated in a civil court or arbitration if provided for in contract - A reference in this regard can be made to decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Kerala State Electricity Board and another vs. Kurien E. Kalathil and others - It is held therein that interpretation and implementation of a clause in a contract cannot be subject-matter of a writ petition - Even if there is any violation of a term of a contract, ordinarily remedy is not a writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India.
Result: Petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 19.07.2021 whereby the registration of a firm, M/s Pranjal Chutia has been cancelled by the respondent authorities in the Oil India Limited, the petitioner has instituted this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for setting aside of the same. The petitioner has also sought for a direction in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate direction or order to the respondent authorities in the Oil India Limited to renew the earlier registration number i.e. Registration no. D/606 in relation to the firm, M/s Pranjal Chutia as a proprietorship concern.
2. The background facts leading to the institution of the writ petition can be briefly stated as follows : Sri Pranjal Chutia had originally registered his proprietorship firm, M/s Pranjal Chutia in the year 2000 with the respondent Oil India Limited vide Registration no. D/606. The registration of M/s Pranjal Chutia as a contractor in the OIL for civil engineering works was originally effected on 17.04.2000 pursuant to an application submitted by Sri Pranjal Chutia bearing no. P-42/045 dated 15.09.1998. The proprietorship concern, M/s Pranjal Chutia was registered, as per the terms and conditions incorporated in a letter dated 17.04.2000, for submission of tenders and for carrying out civil engineering jobs, if a contract is awarded, : [i] as a Class D contractor; [ii] as a proprietorship firm; and [iii] to participate in tenders for work up to a value of Rs. 2,00,000/-. At a later point of time on 16.12.2013, Sri Pranjal Chutia had executed a Deed of Partnership with the petitioner in order to convert the proprietorship firm, M/s Pranjal Chutia into a partnership firm by retaining the same name and to carry out the business of the earlier proprietorship firm, M/s Pranjal Chutia with the respondent Oil India Limited as a partnership firm. The petitioner is the wife of Sri Pranjal Chutia. The terms and conditions of the partnership firm were incorporated in the registered Deed of Partnership bearing no. 1073 dated 16.12.2013, which was registered before the Sub-Registrar, Dibrugarh. The said registered Deed of Partnership was thereafter, submitted along with an application dated 30.12.2013 before the respondent Oil India Limited with the request to register the firm, M/s Pranjal Chutia as a partnership firm. Upon consideration of the application, the respondent Oil India Limited vide its letter bearing no. CONT/CIV/344/2016 dated 27.02.2016 informed the firm, M/s Pranjal Chutia that the status of the firm stood converted from proprietorship firm to partnership firm in its records on the basis of the Deed of Partnership bearing no. 1073 dated 16.12.2013, an affidavit dated 27.03.2015 and a Revocable General Power of Attorney dated 27.03.2015 and on grant of approval by the Competent Authority in the Oil India Limited. The letter dated 27.02.2016 further informed that the partnership firm, M/s Pranjal Chutia had been registered with immediate effect but the same would be subject to the terms and conditions incorporated therein. The terms and conditions included the situations under which the registration would be liable to be cancelled.
3. The partnership firm, M/s Prajal Chutia continued to carry on its business with the respondent Oil India Limited during the subsequent period. But, after serving a Show Cause Notice -cum -Notice for Cancellation of Registration of firm, M/s Pranjal Chutia in OIL dated 17.05.2021, the respondent authorities by the impugned order of cancellation of registration dated 19.07.2021 cancelled the registration of the firm, M/s Pranjal Chutia despite receipt of a reply to the Show -Cause Notice from the end of the petitioner on 01.06.2021.
4. I have heard Mr. R. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.N. Sharma, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. K. Kalita, learned counsel for the respondent authorities in the Oil India Limited.
5. Mr. Chakraborty, learned counsel fo
SupremeToday
In case of any dispute arising out of such a contract same is not to be agitated in a writ petition instituted under Article 226 of Constitution of India and same can only be agitated in a civil cour....
The Deputy Commissioner acted without jurisdiction in cancelling the firm registration, lacking authority to review under the Indian Partnership Act, rendering the action void.
Court clarified validity of partnership dissolution and subsequent registrations, emphasizing the necessity of considering all relevant documents in property ownership disputes.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the dissolution of a partnership firm under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, and the reconstitution of the firm are governed by specific prov....
The court underscored the necessity of adhering to principles of natural justice, requiring that administrative orders affecting rights must include clear reasoning and a fair opportunity for respons....
GST registration cancellation quashed as arbitrary for ignoring proprietor's ill-health causing temporary business halt, issuing vague unreasoned show-cause notices, and passing mechanical orders wit....
Partners cannot unregister without due process; rights remain unless valid documents executed under the Indian Partnership Act.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
