Calcutta High Court Says Advocates’ Partnership Firm Needs No Trade Licence for Registration

The Calcutta High Court, in Dr. Arjun Chowdhury v. State of West Bengal & Ors., has ruled that a partnership firm formed exclusively by advocates for legal practice cannot be required to obtain a trade licence before registration under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932.

Justice Bivas Pattanayak delivered the judgement while hearing a petition filed by advocate Dr. Arjun Chowdhury. The matter was heard at the Circuit Bench of the Calcutta High Court at Jalpaiguri.

Dr. Chowdhury had sought registration of a partnership firm named M/s Pinava Legal. However, the Registrar of Firms, Societies and Non-Trading Corporations, West Bengal, declined to process the application because the firm had not submitted a trade licence.

The petitioner argued that all the information and documents required under Section 58 of the Partnership Act had already been provided. Despite this, the registration authority continued to demand a trade licence before considering the application.

It was submitted that Section 59 places a legal duty on the Registrar to enter the firm’s details in the Register of Firms once the statutory requirements have been satisfied. The provision also requires the authority to issue a certificate confirming the firm’s registration.

The State defended the Registrar’s decision by referring to departmental guidelines and the Bengal Partnership Rules, 1933. It claimed that these provisions supported the requirement to produce a trade licence during the registration process.

The High Court rejected this argument after examining the relevant statutory framework. It found that Sections 58 and 59 completely set out the requirements and procedure for registering a partnership firm under the Partnership Act.

Neither the Indian Partnership Act nor the Bengal Partnership Rules require an advocates’ partnership firm to submit a trade licence as a condition for registration. Therefore, the Registrar could not introduce such a condition independently.

The Court also clarified that administrative directions and departmental guidelines cannot create additional requirements that are absent from the law enacted by the legislature. Executive instructions must remain within the boundaries fixed by the parent statute.

Accordingly, the Court held that the Registrar’s demand for a trade licence was legally unsustainable. A firm carrying on the legal profession could not be treated as though such a licence were a mandatory registration document under the Partnership Act.

The High Court directed the Registrar to process and register the petitioner’s application, bearing number APP-022334, without demanding a trade licence. The registration process must be completed within two weeks from the date of the order.