SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1936 Supreme(Mad) 177

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Stodart, J.
In Re: Arunagiri Mudaliar and Anr.
Versus
Decided On : 27.04.1936

The non-registration of a firm under the Partnership Act does not bar the institution of a new suit after registration.

Headnote:

Interference - Partnership Act - Suit filed by unregistered firm

Fact of the Case:

The court found that the withdrawal of the suit by the partners who have not been registered as a firm could not bar a suit filed on the same cause of action by the same persons when and if they get themselves registered as a firm under the Partnership Act.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the dismissal of a suit filed by a number of persons because they are a firm and are not registered under the Partnership Act should not be a bar to the institution of a suit on the same cause of action by the same persons when they have got themselves registered.

Issues: The issue was whether the non-registration of the firm under the Partnership Act was a mere formal defect and whether it would bar the institution of a new suit after registration.

Ratio Decidendi: The court found that even if the suit had been dismissed in limine, a new suit by the firm after registration would not be barred.

Final Decision: The petition was dismissed.

ORDER

Stodart, J.

1. I do not think this is a case in which the High Court should interfere. Petitioners have been amply compensated in costs. The withdrawal of the suit by the partners who have not been registered as a firm could be no bar to a suit filed on the same cause of action by the same per-sons when and if they get themselves registered as a firm under the Partnership Act. For the latter suit would be technically by a different plaintiff. I do not see any reason why the unqualified dismissal of a suit filed by a number of persons be-cause they are a firm and are not registered under the Partnership Act, should be any bar to the institution of a suit on the [same cause of action by the same persons when they have got themselves registered. The defect which existed in the case, namely the non-registration of the firm, and which the learned District Munsif held to be a mere formal defect not preventing him from giving permission to file a fresh suit-a fresh suit I presume to be filed after the firm is registered under the Partnership Act-may not be a mere formal defect, but I do not think it matters, for the reasons stated. Even if the suit had been dismissed in limine a new suit by the firm after registration would not be barred. The petition is dismissed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top