ARTC1103 - Taxpublishers.in

SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT


The Tax Publishers Companies and LLPs not to use Title and Style of 'Architect' although can render Architectural Services Pragya Lalwani This write up discusses the point of issue raised in case Sudhir Vohra v. Registrar of Companies (2018) 2018 TAXPUB CL 582 (Del-HC) that whether Architects Act, 1972 precludes unregistered architects, including juristic entities, from rendering architectural services or does it merely prohibit them from using the title and style of 'architect' or its derivatives. 1. Facts of the case Three writ petitions were raised with a common issue. (i) First writ petition was filed by an architect Sudhir Vohra, who sought for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the Registrar of Companies(RoC) and Ministry of Corporate Affairs(MCA) to not entertain registration applications from any 'company' or 'Limited Liability Partnership' (LLP) which states that it provides architectural services as of one of its objectives in its memorandum of association. Also a timely action against the existing companies and LLPs which contain the provision of architectural services as one of their objectives should be taken and winding-up proceedings should be initiated against those that had failed to delete such objectives from their MoA. He averred that the Act only applies to natural persons registered with the Council of Architects (CoA), thus, only such persons can render architectural services under the Act and not the juristic entities such as companies and LLPs. A LLP can provide such services only if each one of its partners is a registered architect. Further, section 37 of the Architects Act, 1972(the Act, in short) categorically prohibits any person other than a registered architect from using the title and style of 'architect' or its derivatives or using the same in his name. Only architects, being natural persons registered under the Act have the exclusive privilege to use it and there is no scope for a company/LLP to practice the profession of an architect or to provide architectural services. (ii) In second writ petition, a direction to Ministry of Finance was sought to cancel the permission granted to RSP Architects Planners and Engineers (PTE) Limited Singapore (RSP Singapore) by the Ministry of Commerce and Industry on 8-1-1996, for setting up a wholly owned subsidiary company in India for providing services in architectural planning, design, civil engineering and construction management contending that though RSP India later amended its name to remove the word 'architect' from it, the company continues to violate the Act since it rendered architectural services and mentioned the same as one of its objects in its MoA without the approval of the CoA. Thus, FIPB approval granted to RSP Singapore to incorporate RSP India was liable to be cancelled, in view of the alleged violations by RSP India. SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT

The Tax Publishers

Companies and LLPs not to use Title and Style of 'Architect' although can render Architectural Services

Pragya Lalwani

This write up discusses the point of issue raised in case Sudhir Vohra v. Registrar of Companies (2018) 2018 TAXPUB CL 582 (Del-HC) that whether Architects Act, 1972 precludes unregistered architects, including juristic entities, from rendering architectural services or does it merely prohibit them from using the title and style of 'architect' or its derivatives.

1. Facts of the case

Three writ petitions were raised with a common issue.

(i) First writ petition was filed by an architect Sudhir Vohra, who sought for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the Registrar of Companies(RoC) and Ministry of Corporate Affairs(MCA) to not entertain registration applications from any 'company' or 'Limited Liability Partnership' (LLP) which states that it provides architectural services as of one of its objectives in its memorandum of association. Also a timely action against the existing companies and LLPs which contain the provision of architectural services as one of their objectives should be taken and winding-up proceedings should be initiated against those that had failed to delete such objectives from their MoA. He averred that the Act only applies to natural persons registered with the Council of Architects (CoA), thus, only such persons can render architectural services under the Act and not the juristic entities such as companies and LLPs. A LLP can provide such services only if each one of its partners is a registered architect. Further, section 37 of the Architects Act, 1972(the Act, in short) categorically prohibits any person other than a registered architect from using the title and style of 'architect' or its derivatives or using the same in his name. Only architects, being natural persons registered under the Act have the exclusive privilege to use it and there is no scope for a company/LLP to practice the profession of an architect or to provide architectural services.

(ii) In second writ petition, a direction to Ministry of Finance was sought to cancel the permission granted to RSP Architects Planners and Engineers (PTE) Limited Singapore (RSP Singapore) by the Ministry of Commerce and Industry on 8-1-1996, for setting up a wholly owned subsidiary company in India for providing services in architectural planning, design, civil engineering and construction management contending that though RSP India later amended its name to remove the word 'architect' from it, the company continues to violate the Act since it rendered architectural services and mentioned the same as one of its objects in its MoA without the approval of the CoA. Thus, FIPB approval granted to RSP Singapore to incorporate RSP India was liable to be cancelled, in view of the alleged violations by RSP India.