JUDGMENT - A.P. SHAH, J.:---The appellant was a member of the Bombay Stock Exchange and had appointed the respondent-firm as one of his sub-brokers. The respondent filed a complaint with the Investors Service Cell of the Stock Exchange, Mumbai against the appellant claiming certain amounts. However, thereafter the respondent withdrew its complaint and referred the dispute to arbitration under the bye-laws of the Stock Exchange without intervention of the Court. The respondent appointed Mr. Justice D.B. Deshpande (Retd.) as arbitrator whereas the appellant appointed Mr. Dinesh J. Shah, member of the Stock Exchange. An Award was made on 17-5-1999 by the arbitrators. Under the Award, the arbitrators have awarded an amount of Rs. 2,11,446. 73 with interest to the respondent. The principal ground on which the Award was challenged before the learned Single Judge was that the respondent was not a registered firm and, in any event, was not registered under the Indian Partnership Act at the material time and, therefore, could not make any claim in the arbitration proceedings and, therefore, the reference as well as the Award are void. It was also contended that one of the arbitrators, viz., Mr. Justice D.B. Deshpande was not a member of the Stock Exchange and under the relevant bye-laws of the Stock Exchange, a non-member could not have been an arbitrator and, therefore, the award was invalid. A contention was also raised that the claim which was referred to the arbitration was barred by time. The learned Single Judge rejected all these contentions and upheld the award.

2. Mr. Thakkar, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, has contended that the effect of non-registration is fatal to the validity of the reference and the Award. The contention is based on section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act as amended by the State of Maharashtra. The provisions of section 69 as set out below :-

"69. Effect of non-registration.---(1) No suit to enforce a right arising from a contract or conferred by this Act shall be instituted in any Court by or on behalf of any person suing as a partner in a firm against the firm or any person alleged to be or to have been a partner in the firm unless the firm is registered and the person suing is or has been shown in the register of firms as a partner in the firm.

(2) No suit to enforce a right arising from a contract shall be instituted in any Court by or on behalf of a firm against any third-party unless the firm is registered and the persons suing are or have been shown in the register of firms as partners in the firm.

(3) The provisions of sub-sections (1) and (2) shall apply also to a claim of set-off or other proceeding to enforce a right arising from a contract, but shall not affect---

(a) the enforcement of any right to sue for the dissolution of a firm or for accounts of a dissolved firm, or any right or power to realise the property of a dissolved firm, or

(b) the powers of an official assignee, receiver or Court under the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act, 1909, (3 of 1909) or the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920, (5 of 1920) to realise the property of an insolvent partner.

(4) This section shall not apply---

(a) to firms or to partners in firms which have no place of business in the territories to which this Act extends, or whose places of business in the said territories are situated in areas to which, by notification under section 56, this Chapter does not apply, or

(b) to any suit or claim of set-off not exceeding one hundred rupees in value which, in the Presidency-towns, is not of a kind specified in section 19 of the Presidency Small Causes Courts Act, 1882, (5 of 1882) or outside the Presidency-towns, is not of a kind specified in the Second Schedule to the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887, (9 of 1887) or to any proceeding in execution or other proceeding incidential to or arising from any such suit or claim."

3. Mr. Thakkar contends that the reference to the arbitration of the Bombay Stock Ex

Click Here to Read the rest of this document