- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14148 WP No. 7632 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 7632 OF 2026 (GM-ST/RN) BETWEEN: DIVYASREE SHELTERS LLP A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP INCORPORATED UNDER THE LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP ACT, 2008 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT DIVYASREE CHAMBERS, 8TH FLOOR, A-WING, NO.11, RICHMOND TOWN, O'SHAUGHNESSY ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 025. (AS SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST OF M/S CONCORD INVESTMENTS) REPRESENTED BY ITS DESIGNATED PARTNER MR. RAGHAVENDRA RAO N A. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAGHURAM CADAMBI, ADVOCATE) AND: THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR DEPARTMENT OF STAMPS AND REGISTRATION (REGISTRAR OF FIRMS), SHIVAJINAGAR REGISTRATION DISTRICT, 4TH FLOOR, MONARCH CHAMBERS, NO. 122/22, INFANTRY ROAD, BENGALURU 560 001. …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. NAVYA SHEKHAR, AGA) Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14148 WP No. 7632 of 2026 THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT, ORDER, RULE, OR DIRECTION QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT DATED 22.12.2025 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT BEARING NO. DRO/SJN/FIRM/2024-25/1944 (ANNEXURE-A) AND ANY ACTIONS TAKEN PURSUANT THERETO AND ETC. 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 This captioned writ petition is filed seeking for the following reliefs; "A. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ, order, rule or direction quashing the impugned Endorsement dated 22.12.2025 issued by the respondent bearing No.DRO/SJN/Firm/2024-25/1944 (Annexure-A) and any actions taken pursuant thereto; B. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ, order, rule or direction directing the respondent to record the changes in the constitution of the Firm "M/s Concord Investments" as detailed in the request letter dated 18.12.2025 issued by the petitioner, in the Register of Firms, within a reasonable time; - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14148 WP No. 7632 of 2026 C. Grant such other and further reliefs as are just, including costs of this petition." 2. The petitioner calls in question the impugned endorsement dated 22.12.2025 issued by the respondent– Authority in response to Form No.V submitted by M/s.Concord Investments under Section 63 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, seeking recordal of the reconstitution of the partnership firm in the Register of Firms. The said Form No.V was filed for recording the reconstitutions of the firm effected on 09.11.2006, 01.10.2007, 01.04.2011, 31.03.2017 and 03.03.2025. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that pursuant to the latest reconstitution of the firm under a deed dated 03.03.2025, Form No.V was submitted before the respondent–Authority seeking necessary entries in the Register of Firms. Upon verification of the records, the respondent noticed that the firm had earlier undergone reconstitution under deeds dated 09.11.2006 and 01.10.2007, which had not been reported within the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14148 WP No. 7632 of 2026 period prescribed under Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 4 of the Karnataka Partnership (Registration of Firms) Rules, 1954 (for short, “the Rules, 1954”). Referring to the said delay, the respondent issued the impugned endorsement stating that the reconstitutions could not be recorded as the same had been reported beyond fifteen days from the date of reconstitution. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on judgments rendered by Co-ordinate Benches of this Court, which deal with the issue relating to the reporting of reconstitution of a partnership firm beyond the period of fifteen days contemplated under Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 4 of the Rules, 1954. While interpreting the said provision, the Co-ordinate Benches have held that the requirement of intimating the reconstitution within fifteen days is not mandatory in nature and that mere delay in filing the application cannot be a ground to refuse registration or recording of the reconstitution. In particular, reliance is - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14148 WP No. 7632 of 2026 placed on the judgment of this Court in M/s.Type Tools Corporation vs. The Registrar of Firms, Bangalore and another, reported in 1988 SCC OnLine Kar 345, wherein it is held that the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 and the Rules framed thereunder do not prescribe any penal consequence for failure to intimate the reconstitution within the stipulated period. The provision only prescribes the time within which the intimation is to be made in Form No.V and does not indicate that a delay would disentitle a registered partnership firm from seeking verification and recording of its reconstituted deed before the jurisdictional Registrar. In the light of the law laid down in the aforesaid judgment, this Court is of the view that the impugned endorsement issued by the respondent cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside. Consequently, this Court is inclined to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and issue appropriate directions to the respondents. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14148 WP No. 7632 of 2026 5. For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds to pass the following; ORDER (i) The writ petition is allowed. (ii) The impugned endorsement dated 22.12.2025 issued by respondent as per Annexure-A is hereby quashed. (iii) Consequently, the direction is issued to the respondent to record changes in the constitution of the Firm "M/s.Concord Investments" as detailed in the request letter dated 18.12.2025 submitted by the petitioner, in the Register of Firms, within a reasonable time. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE NBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32