Kerala High Court
Joshi John vs The Institute Of Chartered ... on 26 April, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
MONDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF APRIL 2021/6TH VAISAKHA, 1943
WP(C).No.5833 OF 2020(D)
PETITIONER:
JOSHI JOHN, AGED 54 YEARS,
S/O. MR. JOHN J ALAPATT, NEPTUNE 4E,
TRINITY WORLD, CHITTETHUKARA,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682 037.
BY ADV. SRI.V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OF
INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
ICAI BHAWAN, INDRAPRASTHAMARG,
POST BOX NO.7100, NEW DELHI - 110 002.
2 ANITHA C. SHENOY, W/O. B.KISHORE BHAKTA,
1/3814, "AMRITHA", EAST HILL ROAD,
KOZHIKKODE
3 GIRIJA P.K., KRESTON MENON CHARTERED
ACCOUNTANTS, P O BOX.55535, LEVEL 15,
LAKE CENTRAL AT THE BAY, MARASI DRIVE,
BUSINESS BAY, DUBAI, UNITED ARAB EMIRATES.
R1 BY ADV. SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR
R1 BY ADV. SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI
R1 BY ADV. SRI.JOSON MANAVALAN
R1 BY ADV. SRI.KURYAN THOMAS
R1 BY ADV. SRI.PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM
R1 BY ADV. SMT.ANN MARIA FRANCIS
R2-R3 BY ADV. SRI.B.S.SURAJ KRISHNA
R2-R3 BY ADV. SHRI.FEBIN RAJ T.S.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 26-04-2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No.5833/2020
:2:
[CR]
N. NAGARESH, J.
`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
W.P.(C) No.5833 of 2020
`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Dated this the 26th day of April, 2021
JUDGMENT
~~~~~~~~~
The petitioner, who is a Chartered Accountant
registered with the 1st respondent-Institute of Chartered
Accountants of India, is aggrieved by the refusal of the 1 st
respondent to register his sole proprietorship on its website.
The petitioner sought to command the respondent to record
the dissolution of the firm 'R Menon and Associates' as
shown in Exhibit P5(a) in view of Section 43 of the
Partnership Act as well as Exhibit P4 and to delete the
petitioner's name from the records pertaining to the said firm
in all capacities whatsoever with effect from 21 November
2019. Certain other incidental reliefs were also sought.
W.P.(C) No.5833/2020
2. The petitioner states that respondents 2 and 3 and
the petitioner were Partners of a Firm "R. Menon &
Associates", having office at Ernakulam. The partnership
was constituted as per Ext.P1 Partnership Agreement dated
30.06.2015. The duration of the partnership was 'at will' as
per Clause 9 of Ext.P1. The 1st respondent issued Ext.P2
Registration Certificate dated 15.02.2018 to the partnership.
The 2nd respondent, at the same time, was practising as Sole
Practitioner also.
3. According to the petitioner, he was the Working
Partner and respondents 2 and 3 were residing at Kozhikode
and Dubai and were not taking active role in running the
partnership. The husband of the 3 rd respondent, as landlord,
issued notice to the petitioner to vacate the partnership office
premises. A Rent Control Petition was also filed. The Firm
surrendered the premises to the said landlord, as both the
other Partners gave consent to vacate the premises.
4. The petitioner, who had invested in the premises,
stood to lose his investments due to vacating the premises.
W.P.(C) No.5833/2020
He was no longer interested in continuing with the
partnership and hence sent Ext.P4 notice to respondents 2
and 3, dissolving the partnership with effect from 20.11.2019.
The 3rd respondent, however, sent Ext.P5 reply stating that
the partnership cannot be so dissolved unilaterally. In
Ext.P5, the 3rd respondent stated that if the petitioner wanted
to exit, he should have resigned, leaving the other Partners
to reconstitute and continue with the partnership.
5. Though the petitioner submitted an application to
the 1st respondent-Institute to record dissolution of the
Partnership, it has not been recorded as the web portal of
the 1st respondent-Institute insisted on OTP confirmation by
other Partners. The petitioner desired to continue as
Chartered Accountant at a different address, as a
partnership in the name and style "Joshi John & Associates".
On his application to register the new Firm, the 1 st
respondent noted in the web portal that since the petitioner is
in charge of another partnership at different address, he has
to change his Head Office address.
W.P.(C) No.5833/2020
6. Thereafter, the petitioner proposed to register
"Joshi John & Co." as a sole proprietorship. Though the
petitioner tried to upload Form-18 in respect of the
proprietorship, the Form-18 by default is showing the
petitioner as partner of the dissolved "R. Menon &
Associates". The petitioner sent a series of letters pointing
out his difficulties in uploading the Form-18. The 1 st
respondent is taking a stand that in order to dissolve the Firm
'R. Menon & Associates', the consent of other two Partners is
required. The stand of the 1st respondent seems to be that
when an activity of dissolution of a Partnership Firm is
pending, another activity of registration of a Proprietary Firm
cannot be initiated.
7. As the issue involved is one affecting the
fundamental right of the petitioner to pursue a profession,
this Court passed an interim order on 20.10.2020 directing
the 1st respondent to upload the Form-18 pertaining to the
petitioner's proprietary concern. The petitioner would submit
that though the Form-18 was uploaded pursuant to the
W.P.(C) No.5833/2020
interim order of this Court, since the name of the dissolved
Firm still exists in the records of the 1 st respondent, the
petitioner is denied the right to apply for Multi Purpose
Empanelment to obtain audit assignments of Banks and
Public Sector Undertakings.
8. When the writ petition was heard on 26.02.2021,
the counsel for respondents 2 and 3 submitted that the
objection of respondents 2 and 3 is to the unilateral
dissolution of the Firm by the petitioner and if the petitioner
makes an application for retirement from Partnership, the
respondents 2 and 3 will give their endorsement, without
prejudice to the right of the parties for resorting to
adjudication process for resolution of partnership claims.
Respondents 2 and 3 undertook not to object to the
retirement of the petitioner from "R. Menon and Associates".
However, on 30.03.2021, when the writ petition was heard,
respondents 2 and 3 submitted that retirement of the
petitioner can be permitted only after settlement of
partnership accounts.
W.P.(C) No.5833/2020
9. The 1st respondent-Institute filed a statement
resisting the writ petition. According to the 1 st respondent, as
per Regulation 190(1) of the Chartered Accountants
Regulations, 1988, a Chartered Accountant (CA) shall,
before commencing practice in a Trade name or Firm name,
apply to the Council to use a Trade or Firm name. As per
Regulation 190(7), every time there is a change in the
particulars of office or Firm, the Member or the Firm, as the
case may be, shall communicate it to the Council. The
Council of the 1st respondent-Institute in its 165 th meeting
held on 24th - 26th November, 1993 decided that in the case
of retirement of Partner(s), if other Partner(s) do not confirm
the retirement within the specified period, such retirement
would not be noted in the records of the partnership.
However, the fact that there is a dispute among the Partners
of a Firm would be intimated to the C&AG/RBI while
furnishing the particulars of the Firm for empanelment of
Bank/C&AG audit.
W.P.(C) No.5833/2020
10. The 1st respondent further submitted that in view
of the decision of the Council at its 300 th meeting held on
24th-26th November, 2010, where a Firm is 'at will', retirement
or reconstitution cannot be permitted if Partners object to it
on being put to notice. The 1 st respondent further stated that
in view of Section 27(1) of the Chartered Accountants Act,
1949, where a Chartered Accountant in practice or a Firm,
has more than one office in India, each one of such offices
shall be in the separate charge of a member of the Institute.
In the light of Section 27(1) of the Act and of the Regulation
187(1), the petitioner cannot register his sole proprietorship
in the self-service portal at a different address unless he is
relieved as in charge of the Head Office of the Firm,
contended the 1st respondent.
11. Respondents 2 and 3 filed counter affidavit and
strongly opposed the writ petition. The respondents stated
that after surrender of the leased premises to the husband of
the 3rd respondent, the petitioner sent notice of dissolution.
Respondents 2 and 3 informed the petitioner that he may
W.P.(C) No.5833/2020
retire and they will reconstitute the Firm and will continue
with the Partnership. They also suggested that before
dissolution, the Firm needs to be valued on the basis of
existing gross billing, or multiple of Net Profits or even on the
basis of sharing of the clientele. The respondents 2 and 3
contended that the petitioner, instead of dissolving the
partnership in a fair manner, has appropriated all the works,
business and clientele without settling the accounts and
apportioning the business in a reasonable manner.
12. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner,
learned Standing Counsel for the 1 st respondent and the
counsel for respondents 2 and 3.
13. The question arising for consideration is whether
the 1st respondent-Institute for Chartered Accountants of
India can force a Chartered Accountant to continue in a
partnership of Chartered Accountants even after dissolution
of the Partnership Firm or retirement of the Chartered
Accountant, by retaining such unwilling partner in the
Partnership Firm, in the register of partnerships maintained
W.P.(C) No.5833/2020
by the 1st respondent. To examine this issue, it is necessary
to examine the Scheme of the Chartered Accountants Act,
1949 which provides for Registration of Members.
14. The Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 has been
enacted for making provision for regulation of the profession
of Chartered Accountants and to establish an Institute of
Chartered Accountants for that purpose. As per Section 2(b)
of the Act, 1949 "Chartered Accountant" means a person
who is a member of the Institute incorporated under Section
3 of the Act. A member of the Institute shall be entitled to
practice as a Chartered Accountant only if he obtains a
Certificate of Practice from the Council of the Institute.
15. Section 4 of the Act, 1949 lays down eligibility of
persons to have their names entered in the register. Section
19 provides for maintenance of Register of Members.
Section 19 reads as follows:
"(1) The council shall maintain in the
prescribed manner a Register of the Members of
the Institute.
(2) The Register shall include the following
particulars about every member of the Institute,
namely, -
W.P.(C) No.5833/2020
(a) his full name, date of birth domicile,
residential and professional addresses;
(b) the date on which his name is entered
in the Register;
(c) his qualifications;
(d) whether he holds a certificate of
practice; and
(e) any other particulars which may be
prescribed.
(3) The council shall cause to be published
in such manner as may be prescribed, a list of
members of the Institute as on the 1st day of April
of each year, and shall, if requested to do so by
any such member, send to him a copy of such list
on payment of such amount as may be
prescribed."
16. It is to be noted that Sections 4 read with Section
19, contemplates maintenance of only a Register of
Members. Section 19 does not require maintenance of a
register of Firms, whether proprietary or partnership of
Chartered Accountants. However, under Section 19(2)(e),
the register shall include any other particulars 'which may be
prescribed'. The term "prescribed" as per Section 2(1)(f),
means prescribed by regulations made under the Act, 1949.
17. Though the provisions of the Act, 1949 do not
make provision for registration of partnerships of Chartered
W.P.(C) No.5833/2020
Accountants, the Act recognises existence of partnerships of
Chartered Accountants. By an amendment to Section 27
brought about by the Act 15 of 1959, it has been mandated
that where a Firm of Chartered Accountants in practice has
more than one office in India, each one of such offices shall
be in the separate charge of a member of the Institute.
18. The Council, in exercise of its powers under
Section 30 of the Act, 1949 has framed the Chartered
Accountants Regulations, 1988. The Regulation 190 which
deals with Register of Offices and Firms, reads as follows:
"190. Register of offices and firms
(1) A chartered accountant in practice or a
firm of such chartered accountants shall, before
commencement of practice in a trade name or
firm name, apply to the council in the form
approved by the Council for approval to use a
trade or a firm name;
PROVIDED that a chartered accountant in
practice who wishes to practice in his own name
need not apply for approval as aforesaid.
(2) x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
(3) The Council may, at its discretion, refuse to
approve a particular trade or firm name (I) if the
same or similar or nearly similar name is already
used by a chartered accountant in practice or a
firm of such chartered accountants and has been
entered in the register of offices and firms; or (ii)
if that name, in the opinion of the Council, is
W.P.(C) No.5833/2020
undesirable.
(4) The chartered accountant in practice or a firm
of such chartered accountants shall within one
month of the approval of the trade or firm name,
or commencement of practice as the case may
be, supply to the Council in the appropriate Form
particulars regarding his office or the firm as the
case may be.
(5) With effect from such date as the Council
may decide the particulars regarding offices or
firms shall also be furnished by a Chartered
Accountant in practice or a firm or such
Chartered Accountants whose particulars are
already entered in the Register of Firms in the
appropriate Form as revised by the said
Amendment/Regulations.
(6) The Council shall maintain a register of
offices and firms and shall register therein the
particulars referred to in sub-regulation (4).
PROVIDED that the Council may refuse to
register a trade or firm name which has not been
approved under sub-regulation (2).
(7) Every time there is a change in the particulars
referred to in sub-regulation (4), the member or
the firm, as the case may be, shall within one
month communicate it to the Council.
(8) Where the same trade or firm name has been
registered in the past in the register of offices
and firms in the case of two or more members or
firms, the Council may direct the member or the
firm, as the case may be, other than one whose
name was registered first in the register of offices
and firms, to alter the name in such manner as
the Council may consider proper and inform the
Council of such alteration within six months of
the issue of the direction.
(9) (i) No member shall practice under a trade or
firm name which has not been approved under
sub-regulation (2).
(ii) No member shall practice under a trade or
W.P.(C) No.5833/2020
firm name in respect of which a direction has
been issued under sub-regulation (8) after the
expiry of six months from the date of issue of the
direction.
(10) Nothing contained in this regulation shall
apply to firms of chartered accounts in practice (i)
with identical names, if at least one of the
partners of the firm is common; or (ii) with similar
or nearly similar names if they are based on the
names of any one or more partners of the firm.
(11) The Executive Committee may, in its
discretion, condone the delay in filing the
particulars under sub-regulation (4) or sub-
regulation (7) in appropriate cases."
19. The Regulation only requires that a Chartered
Accountant in practice or a Firm of such Chartered
Accountants shall, before commencement of practice in a
trade name or Firm name apply to the Council for approval to
use a trade or Firm name. The Regulations, 1988 do not
make provisions for registration, re-constitution or dissolution
of Partnership Firms. However, the Regulation 190 (7)
requires that every time there is a change in the particulars
referred to in sub section (4), the member or the Firm shall
communicate it to the Council. The Regulation 190(6)
contemplates maintenance of a Register of Offices and
Firms. The Regulations prescribe a form of application
W.P.(C) No.5833/2020
(Form - 18) for using a Trade name or Firm name.
20. The Form-18 indeed requires the signature of all
partners, in the case of partnership Firms. The question is
when a partnership firm of Chartered Accountants is
dissolved or when one of the partners retires, can the
Council refuse to recognise the dissolution or retirement, in
the absence of unanimous approval thereof by all existing
partners? The Regulations, 1988 do not deal with this
question.
21. One Shri. N.K. Gupta, FCA sent a letter dated
06.10.1993 to the Council wherein he suggested that if a
partner sends an intimation that he has retired from the Firm,
the retirement should be noted by the Institute on the basis
of the intimation received from the retiring partner. The 165 th
meeting of the Institute held during 24 th - 26th November,
1993 considered the said letter and after a detailed
discussion, took the following decision:
"1. On receipt of a notice of retirement
from partner(s) of a firm, a communication
would be sent to the other partner(s) of the
firm to confirm within a specified period to be
W.P.(C) No.5833/2020
decided by the office, the retirement of the
partner(s) who had sent the notice to the
Institute.
2. In case the other partner(s) do not
confirm the retirement or do not send the
confirmation within the specified date the
retirement of the partner(s) having sent the
notice of retirement from the firm would be
noted in the records of the Institute.
3. In case of intimation of existence of
dispute between/among partners received
from the firm/other partners a suitable note
would be kept in the records of the Institute
and retirement will not be noted.
4. The fact that there was dispute
among the partners of a firm would also be
intimated to the C.&A.G./RBI while furnishing
the particulars of the firm for empanelment of
bank/C.&A.G. audit."
22. Therefore, if there is a dispute among the
partners, regarding retirement, the retirement will not be
noted by the Institute. A perusal of Ext.R1(b) minutes of the
said 165th meeting of the Council would show that due to the
stand of the Council on the procedure for noting retirement of
partners, in a few cases, the members had to adopt an
unhealthy recourse of surrendering the Certificate of Practice
as the Institute did not effect the retirement for want of
confirmation from other partners for long time.
W.P.(C) No.5833/2020
23. The 300th meeting of the Council held during 24 th -
26th November, 2010 considered a report of the Group under
the Convenorship of Shri.Nilesh Vikamsey, FCA on
development of an alternative dispute resolution mechanism
for dealing with disputes of (i) member in vis-a-vis member
and (ii) member vis-a-vis student. Ext.R1(i) minutes of the
said meeting would indicate that what is proposed by the
Group is a voluntary dispute resolution mechanism. The
Council however did not finalise the mechanism, but
authorised the Group Convenor to make necessary
modifications in the mechanism. The meeting however took
the following decisions:
"(1) In case of reconstitution of a firm,
wherever form 18 duly signed by the
remaining partners and the resignation letter
of outgoing partner(s) is received, the office
will take such reconstitution on record as per
the current practice.
(2) Wherever the firm is "at will" as per
the deed of partnership and the retirement of
a partner(s) is informed and form 18,
accompanied by a certified copy of
partnership deed, is submitted duly signed by
the remaining/surviving partners of the firm.
In such a case, the fact of such retirement will
be informed to the outgoing partner(s)
concerned giving a notice by recorded
W.P.(C) No.5833/2020
delivery mode of 14 days to inform the factual
position. In case of no response is received,
the reconstitution of the firm will be taken on
record. If an objection is received, the
reconstitution of the firm will not be taken on
record and the firm as well as the outgoing
partner(s) will be informed about the option of
availing the forum of Dispute Resolution
Mechanism of the Institute.
(3) Wherever the firm is "at will" as per the
deed of partnership and the partnership deed
has vested in the Managing Partner of thef irm
to perform certain specified acts which
includes reconstitution of firm on his own and
if he, in pursuance of such authority, informs
the Institute and submits form 18,
accompanied by a certified copy of
partnership deed, duly signed by the
remaining/surviving partners of the firm, the
fact of such Form 18 specifying the act will be
informed to the outgoing partner(s) concerned
giving a notice by recorded delivery mode of
14 days to inform the factual position. In case
of no response or confirmation is received, the
reconstitution of the firm will be taken on
record. If objection is received, the
reconstitution of the firm will still be taken on
record and the aggrieved members can move
the Dispute Resolution Mechanism."
24. The eventualities contemplated in the above
decisions will not take in the issue at hand in this writ petition.
Therefore, in the light of the stand taken by the respondents,
the petitioner will either have to wait till the respondents 2
and 3 agree either to the dissolution of the Firms or to the
retirement of the petitioner from the Firms, in order to come
W.P.(C) No.5833/2020
out of the earlier partnership.
25. Though in pursuance of the interim directions of
this Court, the 1st respondent has permitted the petitioner to
register a new sole proprietary Firm 'Joshi John & Co.', the
problem faced by the petitioner is that he continues to be
described as Managing Partners of 'R. Menon & Co.' at one
address and sole proprietors of 'Joshi John & Co.' in a
different address. It offends Section 27 of the Act, 1949.
Furthermore, it causes hurdles in the way of the petitioner to
apply for multi purpose empanelment to obtain audit
assignments of Banks and Public Sector Undertakings.
26. It is clear from the Scheme and provisions of the
Act, 1949 that the Act is not intended to register the
partnerships of Chartered Accountants or regulate inter se
relations or disputes between partners. The Regulation 190
is intended only to regulate the Trade name or Firm name of
Chartered Accountants. The Regulation 190(1) mandates
approval of Firm name and the Regulation 190(7) mandates
communication to the Council, of changes in the
W.P.(C) No.5833/2020
particulars of a Firm. The Registration and regulation of a
partnership Firm of Chartered Accountants, like any other
partnerships therefore are to be governed by the Indian
Partnership Act, 1932.
27. It is not disputed that 'M/s. R. Menon and
Associates' is a partnership at will. Section 43 of the Indian
Partnership Act, 1932 provides that when a partnership is 'at
will', the firm may be dissolved by any partner giving notice in
writing to all the other partners of his intention to dissolve the
firm. The Firm is dissolved as from the date mentioned in the
notice and if no date is so mentioned, as from the date of
communication of the notice. Ext.P4 is the dissolution notice
sent by the petitioner and the date of dissolution mentioned
therein is 20.12.2019. Therefore, as per Section 43 of the
Indian Partnership Act, the Firm 'M/s. R. Menon and
Associates' should ordinarily be treated as dissolved from
that date.
28. However, in this writ petition, the respondents 2
and 3 initially took a stand that they have objection in
W.P.(C) No.5833/2020
dissolution of the partnership, but if the petitioner makes an
application for retirement, the respondents 2 and 3 will give
their endorsement, without prejudice to the right of the
parties for resorting to adjudication process for resolution of
partnership claims. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted
application for retirement. But the respondents 2 and 3 have
gone back from their undertaking and have submitted before
the Court that they cannot approve retirement of the
petitioner without settling claims of the continuing partners.
29. Section 32(1)(c) of the Indian Partnership Act,
1932 provides that a partner may retire, where the
partnership is at will, by giving notice in writing to all other
partners of his intention to retire. The petitioner has given
notice of his retirement to respondents 2 and 3 and in view of
Section 32(1)(c), the petitioner stands retired from the
partnership namely 'R. Menon and Associates'.
30. The legal position under the Indian Partnership
Act being so, the 1st respondent-Institute cannot take a stand
that they will not recognise such retirement for the purpose of
W.P.(C) No.5833/2020
Regulation 190 of the Chartered Accountant Regulations. As
stated earlier, the Regulation 190 is intended for the limited
purpose of approving the trade name or Firm name of a
Chartered Accountant or a Firm and for maintaining Register
of Offices and Firms, for that purpose.
31. It has to be noticed that the Chartered
Accountants Act does not empower the Council to adjudicate
inter se dispute between members of the Institute or disputes
between partner-members of a Firm, unless those disputes
fall within the ambit of Chapter V of the Act, 1949. Though
the decision of the Council to evolve a mechanism of
Alternate Dispute Resolution (ADR) to resolve inter se
disputes between their members/Firms is laudable,
availability of such ADR mechanism cannot be a reason not
to record the current status of a Chartered Accountant in a
Firm, in the registers maintained under Regulation 190.
32. Non-recording of such retirement in the Registers,
will have serious adverse consequences on a Chartered
Accountant. It can be seen from the facts of this case, in
W.P.(C) No.5833/2020
spite of retirement from 'M/s. R. Kumar and Associates', the
petitioner is shown as the Chartered Accountant having
charge of the said Firm. The petitioner has now started a
proprietary firm 'Joshi John & Co.', of which also he is in
charge. As per Section 27 of the Act, 1949 where a
Chartered Accountant has more than one office in India,
each one of such offices shall be in the separate charge of a
member. Due to the partnership dispute, the petitioner is
forced to violate Section 27 of the Act, 1949.
33. The forcible continuance of the petitioner, as a
partner of a Firm which is loaded with partnership disputes,
has civil consequences also on the petitioner. As per the
general decisions taken by the Council, the Council will not
only record in their registers that the partnership is under
dispute, but will communicate the said fact C & A.G. and
Reserve Bank of India, while furnishing the particulars of a
Firm for empanelment of Bank/C&AG audits. Such recording
and communication will indeed affect the chances of the
petitioner to get audit assignments.
W.P.(C) No.5833/2020
34. The decision of the 1 st respondent-Institute not to
recognise and record the retirement of the petitioner from
'M/s. R. Kumar and Associates' will therefore cause
unnecessary and unwarranted hindrance to the professional
advancement of the petitioner. It will offend the fundamental
right of the petitioner to practice a profession freely,
guaranteed to him under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution
of India. The petitioner is therefore entitled to reliefs, in this
writ petition.
The writ petition is therefore allowed. The 1 st
respondent is directed to recognise the retirement of the
petitioner from the Firm 'M/s. R. Kumar and Associates'. The
1st respondent shall remove the name of the petitioner from
the list of partners of 'M/s. R. Kumar and Associates'
maintained under Regulation 190 of the Chartered
Accountants Regulations, 1988. The 1 st respondent may
permit the respondents 2 and 3 to re-constitute the Firm, if
they so desire and are eligible. These directions are without
prejudice to the right of the petitioner and respondents 2 and
W.P.(C) No.5833/2020
3 to get their claims in respect of the partnership, adjudicated
through appropriate legal proceedings.
Sd/-
N. NAGARESH, JUDGE
aks/08.04.2021
W.P.(C) No.5833/2020
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT
DATED 30.06.2015
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE
ISSUED TO THE ERSTWHILE FIRM R MENON AND
ASSOCIATES BEARING REGN. NO.003477S DATED
15.02.2018
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION ISSUED WITH
RESPECT TO FORM 18 BEING TAKEN ON RECORD
BY THE DEPUTY SECRETARY OF THE 1ST
RESPONDENT DATED 10.01.2020
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 20.11.2019
ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE OTHER
PARTNERS OF THE ERSTWHILE FIRM R MENON
AND ASSOCIATES
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 04.12.2019
ISSUED BY SMT. GIRIJA P.K.
EXHIBIT P5(A) TRUE COPY OF THE WEBPAGE SHOWING THE
STATUS OF THE FIRM CLOSURE APPLICATION
FILED BY THE PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE 'SCREENSHOT' OBTAINED
FROM THE SELF-SERVICE PORTAL OF THE
WEBSITE OF THE RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P6(a) TRUE COPY OF THE APPROVAL BY THE
RESPONDENT AS REGARDS THE FIRM JOSHI JOHN
& ASSOCIATES
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR NAME
APPROVAL FURNISHED FOR APPROVAL OF THE
NAME JOSHI JOHN & CO
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE APPROVAL ACCORDED TO THE
NAME "JOSHI JOHN & CO"
W.P.(C) No.5833/2020
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF REGULATIONS 185 TO 190 THE
CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT REGULATIONS, 1988
ALONG WITH FORM 18
EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE SERIES OF EMAILS BETWEEN
THE PETITIONER AND THE OFFICIALS OF THE
RESPONDENT UNDER THE SUBJECT 'DISSOLUTION
OF FIRM'
EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE SERIES OF EMAIL SENT BY
THE PETITIONER TITLED 'DIFFICULTY FACED
IN FILING FORM 18 THROUGH SELF SERVICE
PORTAL'
EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL OF THE PETITIONER
DATED 04.11.2020.
EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF EMAIL DATED 05.11.2020 OF
1ST RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE R1(a) A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF
THE CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS REGULATIONS,
1988.
ANNEXURE R1(b) A TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE
MEETING OF THE COUNCIL HELD ON 24TH,
25TH AND 26TH NOVEMBER 1993.
ANNEXURE R1(c) A TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE 300TH
MEETING OF THE COUNCIL HELD ON 24TH-26TH
NOVEMBER, 2010.
ANNEXURE R1(d) A TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL COMMUNICATION
BETWEEN THE 1ST RESPONDENT AND THE 3RD
RESPONDENT DATED 27.11.2019.
W.P.(C) No.5833/2020
EXHIBIT R2 a PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE PARTNERSHIP DEED
DATED 23.4.2007 ENTERED INTO BETWEEN
RAJAGOPALAN ETTUVEETTIL MADHAVA MENON
AND MR. ASHIL M.A. FOR ACQUIRING THE
CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT FIRM A.G. RAJU
ASSOCIATES FROM ITS SOLE PROPRIETOR MR.
A.G. RAJU.
EXHIBIT R2 b PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED
23.4.2007 FOR TAKING OVER THE CHARTERED
ACCOUNTANS FIRM A.G. RAJU ASSOCIATES.
EXHIBIT R2 c PHOTOSTAT COPY OF ADDENDUM TO THE
EXISTING PARTNERSHIP DEED DATED
23.4.2007 ANITHA C. SHENOY WAS INDUCTED
INTO THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM A.G. RAJU AND
ASSOCIATES ALONG WITH THE PARTNERS
RAJAGOPALAN E.M. AND ASHIL M.A. AS THE
3RD PARTNER.
EXHIBIT R2 D PHOTOSTAT COPY OF AGREEMENT ON
21.11.2009, IN WHICH THE 3RD RESPONDENT
WAS INDUCED INTO THE PARTNERSHIP,
THEREBY MAKING THE TOTAL NUMBER OF
PARTNERS INTO FOUR.
EXHIBIT R2 e PHOTOSTAT COPY OF PARTNERSHIP DEED DATED
9.12.2010 RETIREMENT OF ONE PARTNER MR.
ASHIL M.A. FROM THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM AND
TWO NEW PARTNERS VIZ., MR. JOSHY JOHN
THE PETITIONER AND MR. ARJUN K.B WERE
INDUCTED INTO THE PARTNERSHIP.
EXHIBIT R2 f PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE PARTNERSHIP DEED
DATED 30.06.2015 RETIREMENT OF ONE
PARTNER MR. RAJAGOPALAN E.M @ RAJU MENON
FROM THE PARTNERSHIP AND PARTNERSHIP WAS
RECONSTITUTED AMONG THE PETITIONER AND
THE RESPONDENTS 2 AND 3 IN THE RATION OF
25%, 5% AND 70%.
ncd
