The main legal point established in the judgment is the authority of the Registrar to rectify the register of firms under Sec. 64 of the Partnership Act and the applicability of Sec. 31, 32, 33 governing the rights of assignees of a partner's interest.

1. M/s.India Re-rolling Mill is a partnership firm manufacturing M.S.Rounds, M.S.Flats etc. The deed of partnership was duly registered with the Registrar of Firms vide registration No.95/1972. On account of heavy loss incurred by the firm, some of the partners sold their shares in favour of the petitioners for valuable considerations. The assignment of shares is not disputed, the transfer is more than 10 years old. The respondent No.2 also did not raise any objection to sale of shares.

2. The partnership firm is having a property which was let out to the petitioners. The petitioners are paying property tax, electricity charges, telephone bills and complied with other statutory obligations.

3. The documents executed in favour of the petitioners in support of handing over of shares in the firm are as under:

(i) The general power of Attorney of Mahendar Kumar Gupta and Padam Kumar Gupta executed sale deed dated 26.10.2003 in respect of the 14% shares.

(ii) The Power of Attorney Mr.Brij Mohan Gupta followed by sale deed dated 20.08.2007 transferring 9% shares in the account.

(iii) Some of the partners have executed a deed of assignment dated 14.08.2004 followed by the sale deed dated 20.07.2007 with respect to 6% shares in the firm.

(iv) The legal heirs of Rajesh Gupta also assigned 6% shares in favour of the third petitioner.

(v) The assignment deed by Mr.Padam Kumar Gupta with respect to 7% shares in favour of the 4th petitioner on 04.12.2006.

(vi) A deed of assignment was executed by Mrs.Uma Devi with respect to 6% shares in the firm.

(vii) A Power of Attorney Mr.Shankarlal Fatehpuria executed Power of Attorney assigning 6.25% shares in favour of the 7th petitioner for valuable consideration.

4. The petitioners claim that they are holding 72% share in the firm. The submission of the petitioner is that recognising their right and change of ownership, the transferor signed Form V for altering the entry in the Register of firms. The Registrar on being satisfied with the requirement stipulated under the statute, recognised the petitioners as partners of the firm on various dates. This fact was within the knowledge of the second respondent.

5. The firm filed a suit for recovery of possession against the petitioners by treating them to be a tenants of the property. The petitioners contested the suit for possession wherein the firm accepted the assignment but tacitly raised other defences. The person not authorised by the firm represented the partnership firm to dispute the rights of the petitioners. In the suit, subsequent reconstitution and the approval of the reconstitution by the Registrar of firms was challenged in O.S.No.243 of 2004 in Fast Track Court, Coimbatore. The suit was decreed against which the petitioners have filed an appeal vide A.S.No.245 of 2011, in this Court where execution of the decree has been stayed.

6. The submission of the petitioners is that when the subject matter was pending in this Court, the second respondent mischievously moved "a willing officer, who was ready to pass orders without appreciating that he had no authority or jurisdiction in the matter as the matter was pending before the civil Court. The allegations of malafide against respondent No.1 cannot be looked into, as the officer is not impleaded in person.

7. The respondent No.1 issued a notice to the petitioners to appear for enquiry along with documents, in view of the complaint lodged by the respondent No.2, Sulochana and Birj Mohan.

8. The Sulochana and Brij Mohan again have not been impleaded, as parties to this writ petition.

9. It is pleaded case of the petitioners that an objection was raised to the jurisdiction of the respondent No.1 to deal with the issue. It is pleaded that other persons benefited through sale transaction also joined hands with the complainants, which according to the petitioners is fraudulent.

10. It is the case of the petitioners that the complainants had no locus standi to question reconstit