( 1 ) RESPONDENT Nos. 1 and 2 have filed IA No. 5750/97 seeking rejection of the petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter called the "the Act") under Order 7, Rule 11, Civil Procedure Code on ground that the partnership firm not being registered, the petition is barred by Section 69 (1) of the Partners Act, 1932.

( 2 ) BEFORE considering the objection, firstly, relevant facts in brief are require to be taken note of.

( 3 ) THE petitioner and the respondents entered into a partnership agreement on 8th February, 1990 in relation to cinema business including canteen and cycle stand or by any other source by using the cinema building belonging to the partnership firm. The petitioner has claimed rendition of accounts relating to cycle stand and the canteen of Kalyan Cinema from 1986 onwards and to pay share of the petitioner to the extent of 31. 66%. The petitioner further seeks reference of the petition under the arbitration clause which reads as under :

"15. That any dispute or difference arising between the parties or their legal representative or heirs regarding the interpretation of the contents of this deed or in respect of any matter relating to the business of the partnership shall be REFERRED TO to arbitration in accordance with the subject to the provisions of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940. "

( 4 ) IT has not been disputed that the Firm Kalyan Exhibitors was duly registered on 26th February, 1977 and it included the name of S. /sh. R. L. Malhotra, Kartar Singh, Pratap Singh, Kanhi Ram, Gaje Singh, Mohan Lal and Smt. Bhagwati as is apparent from the registration certificate. But the then existing firm was firstly reconstituted on 1st September, 1988 and secondly on 7th February, 1990 on account of death of Sardar Singh, by inducting Kartar Singh, Pratap Singh and Kanahi Ram. Thereafter the firm was comprised of Kartar Singh, Pratap Singh and Kanahi Ram, Bhagwati Devi and Gaje Singh.

( 5 ) THE contention of the respondents is that the partnership firm which was constituted way back in 1977 does not exist any more and it stood dissolved. It is further contended that the petition under Section 20 of the Act is based on a arbitration agreement between the partners of an unregistered firm. It is not maintainable for it is "a right arising from a contract" under Section 69 and the words "other proceedings" cover arbitration proceedings as well. Neither any suit nor any other proceeding, including right to file a petition under Section 20 could be enforced in absence of registration of the firm. Learned Counsel relies upon the following cases.

1. Chanulal Hathibhai Shah v. Champaklal Ambalal Parikh, 1994 (1) Arb. L. R. 172.

2. Jagdish Chander Gupta v. Kajaria Traders (India) Ltd. , (1964) 8 SCR 50.

3. M/s. Shreeram Finance Corporation v. Yasin Khan and Ors. , (1989) 3 SCC 476.

( 6 ) ON the other hand the contention of the petitioner is that once a partnership firm is registered, subsequent re-constitutions do not require any fresh registration. Relying on Sharad Vasant Kotak and Ors. v. Ramniklal Mohanlal Chawda and Anr. , JT 1997 (10) SC 174 (Pr. 35), learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that if by virtue of non-compliance of certain mandatory provisions in not informing the Registrar of Firms about change in the constitution of the firm, certain penalties provided in the Act alone are attracted and that will not lead to the conclusion that the registration of the firm ceased. This conclusion is based on a conjoint reading of Sections 58 - 63 and the forms prescribed thereunder. There cannot be any dispute with this proposition.

( 7 ) BUT this Court is certainly required to consider whether the basic requirement of Section 69 of the Partnership Act stands satisfied or not to decide whether this petition is barred or not barred by Section 69 without entering into the question whether the present petition is a suit or not.

( 8 ) ARBITRATION proceedings are certainly covered in th