AJAY ANANDRAO KITE AND OTHERS vs THE STATE OF MAH. THR. PSO, PS CHANDRAPUR CITY, DIST. CHANDRAPUR AND ANOTHER
- Court
- Bombay High Court
- Case type
- Writ Petition
- Decided on
- 16-03-2026
2026:BHC-GOA:514-DB
2026:BHC-GOA:514-DB
Rajesh Ashok Khaunte & Another
Vs.
The State of Goa & 3 Others
__________________________________________________
WP No. 171 of 2026
Esha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
WRIT PETITION NO. 171 OF 2026
1.
RAJESH ASHOK KHAUNTE, son of late
Mr. Ashok Khaunte, age 52 years, married,
business;
… PETITIONERS
2.
AKSHADA RAJESH KHAUNTE, wife of
Rajesh Khaunte, age 46 years, married,
business, both Indian Nationals and residents
of 1213, Casa De Monte, B.B. Borkar Road,
Badem, Salvador-Do-Mundo, Goa.
~ VERSUS ~
1. THE STATE OF GOA, through the Chief
Secretary, Secretariat, Porvorim, Goa.
2. DEPARTMENT OF LAW AND
JUDICIARY, Government of Goa,
through the Secretary (Law), Secretariat,
Porvorim, Goa.
… RESPONDENTS
3. THE STATE REGISTRAR & HEAD
OF NOTARY SERVICES,
having office
th
at 7 Floor, Shramashakti Bhavan, Patto,
Panaji, Goa.
4. REGISTRAR OF FIRMS,
Civil Registrar
cum Sub-Registrar of Tiswadi, having office
nd
at Spaces Building, 2 Floor, Patto Plaza,
Panaji, Goa.
PPEARANCES
A :
for the Petitioners Senior Advocate, Mr. S.S. Kantak with Mr.
Page 1 of 6
March 16, 2026
::: Uploaded on - 18/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 18/03/2026 11:28:03 :::
Rajesh Ashok Khaunte & Another
Vs.
The State of Goa & 3 Others
__________________________________________________
WP No. 171 of 2026
Amey Sinai Kakodkar, Ms. Neha Kholkar
and Ms. O. FernandesCarvalho
for the Respondents Ms. Simone Maria Correia, AGA
CORAM : VALMIKI MENEZES &
AMIT S. JAMSANDEKAR, JJ.
th
DATED : 16 MARCH 2026
ORAL JUDGMENT: (per VALMIKI MENEZES, J.)
1.
Heard the learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Kantak, appearing for the
Petitioners.
2. Rule. The learned Additional Government Advocate, Ms. Correia, waives
service of notice on behalf of the Respondents. The Rule is made
returnable forthwith by consent of the parties.
3. The Petitioners have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article
226 of the Constitution of India to impugn communication dated
28.10.2025 issued by the Registrar of Firms, Tiswadi, calling for further
information from the Petitioners as to the status of their marriage,
purportedly to facilitate the process of registration of their reconstituted
Firm.
4. Petitioner No. 1 and his brother, Mr. Rohan Khaunte, initially registered a
partnership Firm on 11.02.2016. Thereafter, this Firm was reconstituted in
terms of the provisions of Section 63(1) of the Indian Partnership Act,
1932 on 05.06.2025 with Akshada Khaunte, wife of Petitioner No. 1 being
inducted in the Firm. The Firm was reconstituted with three partners i.e.
Page 2 of 6
March 16, 2026
::: Uploaded on - 18/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 18/03/2026 11:28:03 :::
Rajesh Ashok Khaunte & Another
Vs.
The State of Goa & 3 Others
__________________________________________________
WP No. 171 of 2026
the two Petitioners herein and Mr. Rohan Khaunte. Subsequently, the Firm
was once again reconstituted on 27.06.2025 when a fresh Deed of
Reconstitution of the Partnership was entered amongst the Petitioners
after Mr. Rohan Khaunte retired from the original partnership and the
partnership continued with the two partners i.e. the Petitioners herein. The
Petitioners are husband and wife, with their marriage being registered in
accordance with the Civil Code of Goa applicable to them.
5. A note must be taken that prior to the registration of the partnership on
05.06.2025, the Registrar of Firms, by communication to the Law
Department had sought opinion of the Law Secretary as to whether there
was any prohibition for married spouses, under the regime of communion
of assets applicable to the State of Goa, to register themselves as partners
in terms of the Civil Code. By communication dated 05.05.2023, the Law
Department, Government of Goa submitted its opinion to the Registrar
of Firms clearly stating that there was no prohibition in terms of Section
5 of the Partnership Act, 1932 and there is no embargo on the husband
and wife to enter into the Partnership Deed, governed by the Civil Code
i.e. regime of communion of assets applicable to the State of Goa, in
order to constitute a partnership Firm. It opined that there was no
impediment for constitution of partnership Firm by spouses governed by
the Civil Code of Goa.
6. The Petitioners have reconstituted the partnership by Deed dated
27.06.2025, in terms of Section 63(1) of the Indian Partnership Act and
Rule 7(6) made under the Rules of the Indian Partnership Act in Form VI
and moved the Registrar of Firms for recording the changes and
registering the reconstitution of the Firm under the reconstituted
Page 3 of 6
March 16, 2026
::: Uploaded on - 18/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 18/03/2026 11:28:03 :::
Rajesh Ashok Khaunte & Another
Vs.
The State of Goa & 3 Others
__________________________________________________
WP No. 171 of 2026
Partnership Deed dated 27.06.2025. Instead of recording such changes in
the Register, the Registrar of Firms has issued a communication dated
28.10.2025, which is impugned herein.
7. We have heard the learned Senior Advocate Mr. Kantak appearing for the
Petitioners and the learned Additional Government Advocate, Ms. Correia,
for the Respondents.
8. Rule 5 of the Indian Partnership Act as amended for the State of Goa
reads as follows:-
“5. Partnership not created by status: The relationshiop of partnership
arises from contract and not from status; and, in particular, the members
of a Hindu undivided family carrying on a family business as such, or a
husband and wife under the regime of communion of
property carrying on business as such , are not partners in such
business.”
9. Rule 5, as amended for the State of Goa, has taken into consideration the
regime of communion of assets that would apply to spouses when
married under the Civil Code of Goa and has specifically incorporated this
provision to enable the spouses married under the regime of communion
of assets to create a partnership by a contract. Thus, for the State of Goa,
Rule 5 recognizes contracts between spouses, whose marriage is registered
under the Civil Code and regime of communion of assets.
10. Sub-section (1) of Section 63 of the Partnership Act only empowers the
Registrar to record changes in the constitution of the Firm. There is no
power vested in the Registrar under Section 63 to reject any Application
for recording any changes, which are incorporated in the Deed of
constituted partnership. The power is limited and the provisions of
Page 4 of 6
March 16, 2026
::: Uploaded on - 18/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 18/03/2026 11:28:03 :::
Rajesh Ashok Khaunte & Another
Vs.
The State of Goa & 3 Others
__________________________________________________
WP No. 171 of 2026
Section 5 cannot be availed by the Registrar to examine the Partnership
Deed and reject the Application under Section 63(1) for recording the
constitution or dissolution of the partnership.
11. On referring to the communication dated 28.10.2025, it appears that the
Registrar of Firms is clearly on transgression of the limited powers vested
in it by seeking a clarification on the status of the marriage between the
Petitioners; this is more so in the light of specific averments to Section 5
of the Indian Partnership Act for the State of Goa, factoring the marriage
between the Petitioners under the communion of assets. Amended
Section 5, as quoted by the Registrar under the communication, specifies
that the contract between the spouses under the regime of communion
contract are valid and the mere fact that they are registered, would not be
an impediment for reconstitution of the Partnership Deed. The impugned
communication dated 28.10.2025 travels beyond the powers of the
Registrar of Firms and therefore, must be quashed and set aside.
Obviously, there is no impediment of whatsoever nature to record the
changes in the reconstitution of the Partnership Deed in the Register,
which shall now be done within two weeks from the date of presenting
this order before the concerned Registrar of Firms.
12. For the reasons stated above, Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer
clause (a) of the Petition, which reads thus:
a. For an Order for a writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari
or any other appropriate writ, direction or order quashing and setting
aside the Letter dated 28/10/2025 of the Respondent No. 4 to accept
and register the Deed of Retirement cum Reconstitution of Partnership
dated 27/06/2025 under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932.
Page 5 of 6
March 16, 2026
::: Uploaded on - 18/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 18/03/2026 11:28:03 :::
Rajesh Ashok Khaunte & Another
Vs.
The State of Goa & 3 Others
__________________________________________________
WP No. 171 of 2026
13. The Registrar shall record the change and register it within a period of two
weeks and communicate to the Petitioners.
14. The Petition stands disposed of.
[ AMIT S. JAMSANDEKAR, J. ] [ VALMIKI MENEZES, J. ]
Page 6 of 6
March 16, 2026
::: Uploaded on - 18/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 18/03/2026 11:28:03 :::