- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21147 WP No. 10955 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 10955 OF 2026 (GM-ST/RN) BETWEEN: 1. M/S HOUSSO A PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.4C-162, 2ND FLOOR ABOVE SBI BANK, EAST OF NGEF LAYOUT 2ND MAIN, KASTHURI NAGAR BANGALORE 560 043 REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNERS 1. MR. MANTENA PRAVEEN S/O SRI.PANDU RANGA RAJU AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS 2. MRS. LAKSHMI SAILAJA MANTENA W/O MANTENA PRAVEEN AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, &PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAJESH GOWDA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY STAMPS AND REGISTRATION DEPARTMENT M.S BUILDING, BANGALORE-560001 2. THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR AND REGISTRAR OF FIRMS Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21147 WP No. 10955 of 2026 STAMPS AND REGISTRATION DEPARTMENT DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (REGISTRATION) AND DISTRICT REGISTRAR OFFICE SHIVAJINAGAR -REGISTRATION DISTRICT 4TH FLOOR, MONARK CHAMBERS NO. 122/22, INFANTRY ROAD BANGALORE-560 001. &RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. NAVYA SHEKAR, AGA) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 17.03.2026, BEARING NO. DRO/SJN/FIRM/2025-26/2395 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.2 TO RECORD THE RECONSTITUTION OF THE PETITIONER FIRM, BY ISSUING FORM-V, WITHOUT INSISTING THE SIGNATURE OF EXPELLED PARTNER, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER The captioned petition is filed seeking writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the endorsement dated 17.03.2026 and direct respondent No.2 to record reconstitution of petitioner/firm by issuing Form-V without insisting the signature of expelled partner. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21147 WP No. 10955 of 2026 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned AGA. The short point that needs consideration is as to whether the impugned endorsement is sustainable in the light of order passed by the Coordinate Bench in an identical case where the Coordinate Bench held that Form- V can be filed without insisting the signature of the either outgoing or expelled partner. 3. This Court therefore deems it fit to extract para 3 and 4 of the order. The same is extracted which read as under: "3. Perusal of Form-V shows that it can be filed by incoming, continuing or outgoing partner. 4. In Jeevanlal it is held as follows: "7. Section 63(1) of the Indian Partnership Act reads as follows: "Section 63. Recording of changes in an dissolution of a firm.--(1) When a change occurs in the constitution of a registered firm any incoming, continuing or outgoing partner, and when a registered firm is dissolved any - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21147 WP No. 10955 of 2026 person who was a partner immediately before the dissolution, or the agent or any such partner or person specially authorised in this behalf, may give notice to the Registrar of such change or dissolution, specifying the date thereof; and the Registrar shall make a record of the notice in the entry relating to the firm in the Register of Firms, and shall file the notice alongwith the statement relating to the firm filed under Section 59." Thus Section 63(1) consists of two parts. The first part of Section 63 relates to the retirement of some of the partners which results in reconstitution of the partnership firm and secondly in cases where retirement of partners results in dissolution of the partnership firm. It is made very clear in the said section that after retirement of some of the partners, if the partnership firm is reconstituted and it is continuing then the same has to be intimated by the incoming partners, continuing partners or outgoing partners or by any person who is specially authorised by them to the Registrar. It is only in cases where there is dissolution of partnership firm which arise out of retirement of the partners then the retired partners have to sign the Form No.V. 8. 9. In these circumstances, the stand taken by the third respondent that to avoid any future litigation between the partners, signature of the outgoing partners is required has no legal basis at all. It is not for the third respondent to decide about the legal dispute between the partners as the disputes will be decided as per the partnership deed and it is not the concern of the third respondent at all." - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21147 WP No. 10955 of 2026 4. In the light of the judgement rendered by the Coordinate Bench in an identical fact situation, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned endorsement cannot be sustained either on facts or in law. The scheme and object underlying Indian Partnership Act, 1932, particularly Section 63, is to ensure that changes in the constitution of a registered firm are duly intimated to the Registrar so as to maintain an accurate and updated public record of the firm. The provision consciously employs an enabling expression by permitting <any incoming, continuing or outgoing partner= to notify such change, thereby obviating procedural rigidity and ensuring that the functioning of a partnership firm is not paralysed on account of inter se disputes among partners. The legislative intent is thus facilitative and not obstructive. 5. The insistence by respondent No.2 on obtaining the signature of an expelled or outgoing partner, as a condition precedent for acceptance of Form-V, runs - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21147 WP No. 10955 of 2026 contrary to the plain language of Section 63(1) and defeats the very purpose of the enactment. An expelled partner, by the very nature of cessation, cannot be conferred a veto power to stall statutory compliance by the continuing partners. Such an interpretation would not only amount to rewriting the statutory provision but would also enable mischief by allowing a disgruntled outgoing partner to indefinitely obstruct the reconstitution process. The role of the Registrar, in this statutory framework, is ministerial and regulatory in nature limited to recording the changes upon receipt of due intimation in the prescribed form. The Registrar is not vested with adjudicatory powers to delve into disputes between partners or to impose conditions not contemplated under the statute. Any such insistence would amount to transgressing jurisdiction and trenching upon the domain reserved for civil adjudication under the partnership deed and general law. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21147 WP No. 10955 of 2026 6. Therefore, viewed from any angle, the impugned endorsement, which proceeds on an erroneous understanding of the statutory mandate and travels beyond the scope of authority conferred on respondent No.2, is arbitrary, unsustainable and liable to be quashed. 7. For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds to pass the following: ORDER (i) The writ petition is allowed; (ii) The impugned endorsement dated 17.03.2026 issued by respondent No.2 vide Annexure-A is hereby quashed as being contrary to the statutory scheme of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 and the law laid down by the Coordinate Bench; (iii) Respondent No.2 is hereby directed to receive and act upon Form-V submitted by the petitioner-firm and to record the reconstitution of the firm in the Register of Firms strictly in accordance with Section 63(1) of the Act, - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21147 WP No. 10955 of 2026 without insisting upon the signature or consent of the expelled/outgoing partner, it being clarified that such insistence has no statutory sanction and would amount to an impermissible fetter on the rights of the continuing partners; (iv) It is further made clear that respondent No.2 shall confine its exercise to the ministerial act of recording the change and shall not embark upon adjudication of disputes inter se between partners, which are left open to be agitated before the competent forum in accordance with law; (v) The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order; (vi) No order as to costs. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE CA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 98