Delay beyond 15 days in reporting partnership reconstitution does not bar registration.

M/s Geason Mobilities was registered as a partnership firm in 1981 and later reconstituted in 2003.

After partner C.M. Velayudhan, who held a 50% share, died in 2009, his share was divided among his legal representatives, including the petitioner.

Although a deed of reconstitution was prepared, it was not presented for registration within the prescribed period.

The petitioner claimed that the District Registrar refused registration because of the delay and sought a writ directing the Registrar to condone it and register the deed.

The State submitted that there was no material showing that the petitioner had previously approached the Registrar, but stated that a request would be considered in accordance with law.

Whether the 15-day period under Rule 4(2) of the Karnataka Partnership (Registration of Firms) Rules, 1954, is mandatory such that delay in notifying a reconstitution may justify refusing to register or record it

Whether the petitioner could be permitted to present the deed of reconstitution and obtain registration despite the delay

Rule 4(1) and (2) of the Karnataka Partnership (Registration of Firms) Rules, 1954, prescribes the relevant forms and requires statements, intimations or notices concerning a firm to be given to the Registrar with the prescribed fee within 15 days of the event.

The Court, relying on M/s. Type Tools Corporation v. Registrar of Firms, Bangalore, 1988 SCC OnLine Kar 345, and Divyasree Shelters LLP v. District Registrar, W.P. No. 7632 of 2026, treated that period as directory, not mandatory: delay alone does not disentitle a firm from seeking verification and recording of its reconstitution.

The Court also reproduced Section 59 of the Registration Act, 1908, concerning dating and signing endorsements by a registering officer.

The Court noted that Rule 4(2) sets a 15-day period for notifying a change in a firm’s constitution, but does not make delay alone a ground for refusing registration or recording the reconstitution.

Applying the cited Karnataka decisions, it concluded that the petitioner could present the deed notwithstanding the delay.

Although the State disputed that any prior application had been made, the Court addressed that concern by directing the petitioner to present the document and Form No. V to the Registrar.

It disposed of the petition by permitting the petitioner to present the deed with Form No. V within four weeks of receiving the certified copy of the order, and directing the respondent to register it and make the necessary entry, subject to collection of the prescribed charges.