{"id":55413,"date":"2004-02-07T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2004-02-06T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-c-palanisamy-vs-the-registrar-of-firms-on-7-february-2004"},"modified":"2014-07-20T04:15:11","modified_gmt":"2014-07-19T22:45:11","slug":"k-c-palanisamy-vs-the-registrar-of-firms-on-7-february-2004","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-c-palanisamy-vs-the-registrar-of-firms-on-7-february-2004","title":{"rendered":"K.C.Palanisamy vs The Registrar Of Firms on 7 February, 2004"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">K.C.Palanisamy vs The Registrar Of Firms on 7 February, 2004<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n\nDATED: 07\/02\/2004\n\nCORAM\n\nTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.KANNADASAN\n\nWRIT PETITION No.34553 of 2003\nand\nWPMP No.1233 of 2004\n\nK.C.Palanisamy,\nM\/s.United Builders Consultants,\n78,Arts College Road,\nCoimbatore-641 018.                             .. Petitioner\n\n-Vs-\n\nThe Registrar of Firms,\nCoimbatore-641 018.                             .. Respondent\n\n\n\n                Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the  Constitution  of\nIndia  praying for the issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for\nthe records connected with the order of the respondent  dated  10.9  .2003  in\nNo.15134\/212\/2003,  quash  the  same and consequently direct the respondent to\nconsider the representation dated 14.7.2003 in accordance with law.\n\n!For Petitioner :  Ms.Elizabeth Seshadri for\n                Iyer and Thomas\n\n^For Respondent :  Ms.N.G.Kalaiselvi,\n                Special Govt.  Pleader.\n\n\n\n\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n<p>                By consent of parties, the writ petition itself is  taken  for<br \/>\nfinal hearing.\n<\/p>\n<p>                2.   The  petitioner  is  the Managing Partner of a registered<br \/>\nfirm by name M\/s.United Builders Consultants (hereinafter referred to  as  the<br \/>\nfirm).   He  has  been  carrying  on  the business of promoters of real estate<br \/>\nproperties for past 15 years.  Initially, the partners of the firm intended to<br \/>\nregister the firm as a Company under the  provisions  of  The  Companies  Act,<br \/>\n1956.   It appears that an agreement has been entered into by the partners for<br \/>\nsuch conversion.  On 24.7.2002, the partners of the firm had  applied  to  the<br \/>\nRegistrar  of  Companies,  Coimbatore,  for  registering the firm as a Company<br \/>\nunder the name and style  of  United  Hi-Tech  Builders  (Coimbatore)  Private<br \/>\nLimited.   However,  the partners were informed that they were entitled to get<br \/>\nthe existing name of the firm with just the words &#8216;Private Limited&#8217;  added  to<br \/>\nit.   They  were  further  informed  that in the event of incorporation of the<br \/>\nCompany under a changed name they must take steps to change the  name  of  the<br \/>\nfirm.  Under the said circumstances, the firm intended to register a change in<br \/>\nthe  name  of  the  partnership  firm  and necessary application was submitted<br \/>\nbefore the Registrar of firms.  It is further contended  that  on  19.11.2002,<br \/>\nthe  petitioner  inadvertently  filed  Form-V prescribed under the Partnership<br \/>\nAct, 1932  (hereinafter  called  as  the  &#8220;Act&#8221;)  instead  of  furnishing  the<br \/>\nparticulars  of  the change of name of the firm, it was wrongly stated therein<br \/>\nthat &#8220;the firm United Builders Consultants has been dissolved with effect from<br \/>\n31.03.2002&#8221;.  On the above basis, the respondent has  made  an  entry  in  the<br \/>\nregister of firms that the firm was dissolved.\n<\/p>\n<p>                3.   The petitioner has realised the mistake later on and sent<br \/>\na letter dated 14.7.2003  signed  by  all  the  seven  partners  of  the  firm<br \/>\naccompanied  by  an  affidavit  and requested the respondent to make necessary<br \/>\ncorrection on the ground that the above mistake was bonafide.  The partners of<br \/>\nthe firm have prayed for a rectification of register of firms by removing  the<br \/>\nentry  relating  to  dissolution  of the firm by invoking the powers conferred<br \/>\nupon the registrar under Section  64  of  The  Partnership  Act,  1932.    The<br \/>\nrespondent  by  the  impugned  communication  dated 10.9.2003 has rejected the<br \/>\nrequest of the petitioner, which is challenged in the above writ petition.\n<\/p>\n<p>                4.  The learned Special Government Pleader, Mrs.N.G.Kalaiselvi<br \/>\ncontended that the respondent has not committed any mistake and on  the  other<br \/>\nhand,  he  has  acted  upon in terms of the provisions of The Partnership Act,<br \/>\n1932.  Inasmuch as the petitioner has submitted an application under Form-V by<br \/>\nfurnishing the details as contained therein, the respondent is  left  with  no<br \/>\nother option but to delete its name from the register of firms.\n<\/p>\n<p>                5.  I have considered the rival contentions of the parties.\n<\/p>\n<p>                6.  The counsel for the petitioner has submitted that inasmuch<br \/>\nas  a  power  is  available to the respondent under Section 64 of the Act, the<br \/>\nrespondent  ought  to  have  exercised  its  discretion  on   receipt   of   a<br \/>\nrepresentation  alongwith  the  supporting  materials,  more particularly, the<br \/>\naffidavit signed by all the partners.  There is nothing on record  to  suggest<br \/>\nthat  the partners of the firm are having any dispute among themselves and the<br \/>\nmistake was purely due to inadvertence.  In fact, Rule 7-A of the  Tamil  Nadu<br \/>\nPartnership  (Registration  of  Firms)  Rules, 1951 empowers the respondent to<br \/>\nmake such enquiries or investigation, in case of any pending dispute.  In  the<br \/>\ninstant  case,  even  though no dispute is pending and the respondent is armed<br \/>\nwith the power, by virtue of the Rule 7-A of the Rules, it has  not  exercised<br \/>\nits  discretion  which  causes  very serious loss to the business of the firm.<br \/>\nLearned counsel has also relied upon the judgment of the Division Bench of the<br \/>\nCalcutta High Court in Durga Prosad vs.  Registrar of Firms, West Bengal  (AIR<br \/>\n1966 CALCUTTA  573).    By  placing reliance on the said judgment, the counsel<br \/>\nprays that the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the petitioner  is<br \/>\nentitled to succeed in the writ petition.\n<\/p>\n<p>                7.   A  perusal of the judgment relied upon by the counsel for<br \/>\nthe petitioner discloses that on similar circumstances, when the Registrar has<br \/>\nfailed to exercise his discretion under Section 64 of the Act, the High  Court<br \/>\nhas granted  the  relief to the petitioner therein.  In the said decision, the<br \/>\nDivision Bench has gone into the question as to whether a  positive  direction<br \/>\ncan  be  granted  in  cases  wherever  the discretion was not exercised by the<br \/>\nRegistrar in accordance with the Act and Rules.  It is useful to refer to  the<br \/>\nrelevant  paragraphs  of  the said judgment for the purpose of convenience and<br \/>\nreference:\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;13.  The Rule 8 provides:\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;The Registrar may in his discretion institute such  enquiries  or  make  such<br \/>\ninvestigation  in respect of any matter as may in his opinion be necessary for<br \/>\nthe proper performance of his duties and administration of the Act, especially<br \/>\nwhen a dispute arises amongst the several partners of a firm.   The  Registrar<br \/>\nmay  in his discretion call upon any of the partners or all of them to produce<br \/>\nany original deed, document or such other evidence as he thinks  fit&#8221;.    This<br \/>\nRule  appears  to indicate that a discretion is given to the Registrar to make<br \/>\nenquiries.  It also makes it clear that in enquiring  the  Registrar  acts  in<br \/>\nquasijudicial  manner  in the sense that he should call for the original deeds<br \/>\nand documents or other evidence as he thinks fit.  The Registrar  did  nothing<br \/>\nof the  kind  in  this  case.   He did nothing at the stage before he made the<br \/>\nimpugned entry &#8220;dissolved&#8221; nor did he make the enquiries when  he  was  called<br \/>\nupon by  the  appellant  to  rectify his mistakes.  He has powers under Rule 8<br \/>\nwhich not only are powers to be exercised in his own discretion but are powers<br \/>\nto make such enquiries or such investigation as he may in his discretion think<br \/>\nnecessary for the proper performance of his duty and in the administration  of<br \/>\nthe Act  and  especially when the dispute is among the several partners.  That<br \/>\ntest is more than satisfied here on the ground of proper administration of the<br \/>\nAct, dispute among partners and not to contradict his  own  Register  and  the<br \/>\nother entries  contained therein.  He should have called for an investigation.<br \/>\nHe did not.\n<\/p>\n<p>                14.  It is no wonder that the  Registrar  did  not  appear  to<br \/>\nanswer the  Rule  issued  by  this  Court.   The Rule was directed against the<br \/>\nRegistrar of Firms as a respondent in this application to answer the Rule  and<br \/>\nshow cause  to  explain  his  order  or his action.  Mr.Ginwalla appearing for<br \/>\nrespondent Manickchand in this state of  affairs  was  rather  embarrassed  to<br \/>\ndefend the conduct of the Registrar but suggested some kind of comparison with<br \/>\nthe  Registrar of Trade Marks under the Trade Marks Act who need not appear in<br \/>\nthe proceedings against the order of the Registrar of Trade Mark.  The analogy<br \/>\nis inapplicable.  This is not a proceeding against the Registrar of Trade Mark<br \/>\nunder the Trade Marks Act.  Here this is a proceeding under Article 226 of the<br \/>\nConstitution where the Registrar of Firms was made a party  respondent  and  a<br \/>\nRule was  issued upon him to show cause.  Therefore, it was incumbent upon him<br \/>\nto appear and explain his conduct  and  his  action.    It  is  all  the  more<br \/>\nnecessary  for  the  Registrar to appear and help the Court in this proceeding<br \/>\nhaving regard to Section 65 of the  Indian  Partnership  Act  which  expressly<br \/>\nprovides:\n<\/p>\n<p>                &#8220;A Court deciding any matter relating to a registered firm may<br \/>\ndirect  that  the  Registrar  shall  make  any  amendment  in the entry of the<br \/>\nRegister of Firms relating to  such  Firm  which  is  consequential  upon  its<br \/>\ndecision; and the Registrar shall amend the entry accordingly.\n<\/p>\n<p>                For  these reasons, the Rule must be made absolute in terms of<br \/>\nprayer (a) of the petition&#8221;.\n<\/p>\n<p>                8.  A perusal of the above  paragraphs  makes  it  clear  that<br \/>\ninasmuch  as  in  a  given  case when the Registrar has failed to exercise the<br \/>\nstatutory duty, the Court is entitled  to  grant  a  positive  direction.    A<br \/>\nperusal  of  the  impugned order discloses that the respondent has not adduced<br \/>\nany reasons as to why the  representation  of  the  firm  is  rejected.    The<br \/>\nimpugned  order  also  does  not  disclose  as  to  why  the Registrar has not<br \/>\nexercised the powers under Section 64 of the Act.  In view of  the  fact  that<br \/>\nthe Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court has allowed the writ petition on<br \/>\nidentical  facts  and circumstances, I am also inclined to grant relief to the<br \/>\npetitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>                9.  For the reasons stated above, the impugned  order  of  the<br \/>\nrespondent  is  quashed  and  the  respondent  is  directed  to  consider  the<br \/>\nrepresentation of the petitioner dated 14.7.2003 in terms of Section 64 of the<br \/>\nAct and necessary orders may be passed by removing the entry relating  to  the<br \/>\ndissolution of  the  firm.    The  above  exercise shall be completed within a<br \/>\nperiod of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of  this  order.    The<br \/>\nRule is made absolute.  No costs.  Consequently, connected WPMP is closed.\n<\/p>\n<p>Index :  Yes<br \/>\nInternet :  Yes<br \/>\nsvn<\/p>\n<p>To<\/p>\n<p>The Registrar of Firms,<br \/>\nCoimbatore-641 018.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court K.C.Palanisamy vs The Registrar Of Firms on 7 February, 2004 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 07\/02\/2004 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.KANNADASAN WRIT PETITION No.34553 of 2003 and WPMP No.1233 of 2004 K.C.Palanisamy, M\/s.United Builders Consultants, 78,Arts College Road, Coimbatore-641 018. .. Petitioner -Vs- The Registrar of Firms, [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-55413","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>K.C.Palanisamy vs The Registrar Of Firms on 7 February, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-c-palanisamy-vs-the-registrar-of-firms-on-7-february-2004\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"K.C.Palanisamy vs The Registrar Of Firms on 7 February, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-c-palanisamy-vs-the-registrar-of-firms-on-7-february-2004\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2004-02-06T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-07-19T22:45:11+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-c-palanisamy-vs-the-registrar-of-firms-on-7-february-2004#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-c-palanisamy-vs-the-registrar-of-firms-on-7-february-2004\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"K.C.Palanisamy vs The Registrar Of Firms on 7 February, 2004\",\"datePublished\":\"2004-02-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-07-19T22:45:11+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-c-palanisamy-vs-the-registrar-of-firms-on-7-february-2004\"},\"wordCount\":1532,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-c-palanisamy-vs-the-registrar-of-firms-on-7-february-2004#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-c-palanisamy-vs-the-registrar-of-firms-on-7-february-2004\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-c-palanisamy-vs-the-registrar-of-firms-on-7-february-2004\",\"name\":\"K.C.Palanisamy vs The Registrar Of Firms on 7 February, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2004-02-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-07-19T22:45:11+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-c-palanisamy-vs-the-registrar-of-firms-on-7-february-2004#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-c-palanisamy-vs-the-registrar-of-firms-on-7-february-2004\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-c-palanisamy-vs-the-registrar-of-firms-on-7-february-2004#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"K.C.Palanisamy vs The Registrar Of Firms on 7 February, 2004\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"K.C.Palanisamy vs The Registrar Of Firms on 7 February, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-c-palanisamy-vs-the-registrar-of-firms-on-7-february-2004","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"K.C.Palanisamy vs The Registrar Of Firms on 7 February, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-c-palanisamy-vs-the-registrar-of-firms-on-7-february-2004","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2004-02-06T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-07-19T22:45:11+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-c-palanisamy-vs-the-registrar-of-firms-on-7-february-2004#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-c-palanisamy-vs-the-registrar-of-firms-on-7-february-2004"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"K.C.Palanisamy vs The Registrar Of Firms on 7 February, 2004","datePublished":"2004-02-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-07-19T22:45:11+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-c-palanisamy-vs-the-registrar-of-firms-on-7-february-2004"},"wordCount":1532,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-c-palanisamy-vs-the-registrar-of-firms-on-7-february-2004#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-c-palanisamy-vs-the-registrar-of-firms-on-7-february-2004","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-c-palanisamy-vs-the-registrar-of-firms-on-7-february-2004","name":"K.C.Palanisamy vs The Registrar Of Firms on 7 February, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2004-02-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-07-19T22:45:11+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-c-palanisamy-vs-the-registrar-of-firms-on-7-february-2004#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-c-palanisamy-vs-the-registrar-of-firms-on-7-february-2004"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-c-palanisamy-vs-the-registrar-of-firms-on-7-february-2004#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"K.C.Palanisamy vs The Registrar Of Firms on 7 February, 2004"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/55413","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=55413"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/55413\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=55413"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=55413"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=55413"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}