The Calcutta High Court held that authorities cannot insist on a trade licence for registering a partnership firm formed solely for legal practice. The court directed the Registrar of Firms, Societies and Non-Trading Corporations, West Bengal, to register M/s Pinava Legal’s application within two weeks.
The Calcutta High Court has held that the authorities cannot demand a trade licence as a condition for registering a partnership firm that is formed exclusively to practise law.
The court directed the Registrar of Firms, Societies and Non-Trading Corporations, West Bengal, to process and register the application filed by M/s Pinava Legal within two weeks.
Advocate Dr. Arjun Chowdhury, appearing in person, filed the petition after the Registrar’s office refused to register M/s Pinava Legal, an advocates’ partnership firm.
The refusal was based on the firm’s failure to submit a trade licence.
Dr. Chowdhury contended that the firm had met all requirements under Section 58 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932. He argued that the Partnership Act does not require a trade licence for the registration of a partnership firm, and that once the statutory prerequisites are satisfied, registration should follow as a matter of course.
The State, however, cited registration guidelines that list trade licence documents among the necessary requirements. At the same time, it conceded that a lawyers’ office cannot be treated as a commercial establishment.
Justice Bivas Pattanayak examined Sections 58 and 59 of the Partnership Act. The court noted that the legislation specifies what information and documents are to be provided for registration, but it does not include any requirement relating to a trade licence.
The court further observed that once an applicant fulfils the requirements under Section 58, the Registrar must register the firm in accordance with the statutory mandate.
In its reasoning, the bench noted,
“Section 58 of the Act of 1932 does not provide for production/submission of trade licence.”
The court also held that administrative or procedural guidelines cannot add conditions that are not found in the primary legislation.
The High Court ruled that the Registrar was not justified in insisting on a trade licence for a partnership firm set up to practise the legal profession.
It therefore directed the Registrar to process Application No. APP-022334 and complete the registration of M/s Pinava Legal within two weeks, without requiring the production or submission of any trade licence. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly.
Case Title: Dr Arjun Chowdhury v. The State of West Bengal & Ors.