BIREN VAISHNAV, NISHA M. THAKORE
Hetal Steel Corporation, A Regd. Partnership Firm – Appellant
Versus
R R Trading Co. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Biren Vaishnav, J.
1. This first appeal has been filed by the original plaintiff under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure challenging the legality and validity of the order passed by the learned 7th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bhavnagar below Ex. 14 in Summary Suit No. 11 of 2014. By an order dated 15.12.2015, the learned Civil Judge has entertained the defendant’s application under Order 7 Rule 11 (a) of the Code of Civil Procedure and dismissed the summary suit on the ground that the suit was barred by Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 (‘The partnership Act’ for short).
2. Facts in brief are as under:
2.1 It was the case of the plaintiff – appellant that during the course of business transactions, since the year 2009, with the opponents, for the year 2009-10 the defendant – opponents had made payments of Rs.1,18,18,142/- against a total outstanding of Rs.1,44,12,937/-. Therefore, Rs.25,94,795/- were outstanding. Similarly for the year 2010-11, during the course of business transactions when the defendants had ordered goods amounting to Rs.7,85,52,604/- from the appellants and the goods were delivered to them, after a lot of dilly dallying, the oppone
Purushottam and Another vs. Shivraj Fine Arts Litho Works and Others
Delhi Development Authority vs. Kochhar Construction Work and Another
Farooq vs. Sandhya Anthraper Kurishingal and Others
Laljibhai Ramjibhai Hamirani vs. Lavjibhai Haribhai Mandanka
Raptakos Brett & Co. Ltd. vs Ganesh Property
U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd. V/s. Jain Construction Co. And Anr.
Addanki Narayanappa and Anr. V/s. Bhaskara Krishnappa (D) & Ors.
An unregistered partnership firm cannot file a suit for enforcement of a contract against a third party, as per Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the jurisdictional fact of registration of the partnership firm must be averred in the plaint to avoid the suit being rendered void under Sect....
Point of Law : Section 154 (1)(c) of Assam Land and Revenue Regulation cannot act as a bar as regards the maintainability of suit for which said cannot also be a substantial question of law involved ....
The court affirmed that suits regarding partnership rights can proceed even if the firm is unregistered and emphasized the requirement of proper evidence to establish claims of profit-sharing.
A suit for recovery of money by partners of an unregistered firm is not maintainable under Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, which mandates registration for such suits.
(1) Suit for enforcing right of avoidance of a document on the ground of fraud and misrepresentation as also statutory rights of seeking declaration and injunction can be filed by an unregistered par....
Unregistered partnership firms can enforce rights for accounts and dissolution via arbitration, as outlined in the Indian Partnership Act, Section 69.
An unregistered partnership firm cannot enforce rights arising from a contract under Section 69(2) of the Indian Partnership Act, which prohibits such suits against third parties.
Section 69(2) of the Partnership Act is not a bar for the enforcement of a statutory right or a common law right by an unregistered firm.
A suit for specific performance cannot be maintained by partners of a dissolved firm; and claims are barred under Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act and the Limitation Act.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.