IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
N. D. OJHA, V. KUMAR
MAHENDRA SINGH - Appellant
Versus
TEJ RAM SINGH - Respondents
F. A. F. O. 317 Of 1986
Decided On : 10/28/1986
PARTNERSHIP ACT, 1932 - SECTION 69 - SUIT BY UNREGISTERED FIRM - MAINTAINABILITY - SUIT FOR INJUNCTION TO RESTRAIN DELIVERY OF CHEQUES TO ONE OF THE PARTNERS - SUIT HELD TO BE BARRED BY SECTION 69, PARTNERSHIP ACT.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff, a partner in an unregistered firm, filed a suit for injunction to restrain the Engineer in charge of a construction project from delivering cheques meant for the firm to one of the partners, Mahendra Singh Chaudhary, who was allegedly misusing them. The plaintiff claimed that the firm had been reconstituted on February 1, 1984, with six new partners, including himself, and that Mahendra Singh Chaudhary was a partner in both the old and new firms.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the suit was barred by Section 69 of the Partnership Act, 1932, which prohibits unregistered firms from filing suits in court. The court found that the firm in question was unregistered and that the plaintiff had no personal interest in the subject matter of the suit, his only interest being as a partner of the unregistered firm.
Issues: Whether the suit was barred by Section 69 of the Partnership Act, 1932, since the firm in question was unregistered.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the Supreme Court decision in Loonkaran Sethia v. Ivan E. John, AIR 1977 SC 336, which held that a suit for the enforcement of an agreement entered into by a partner of an unregistered firm is barred by Section 69 of the Partnership Act. The court held that the present suit was similar to the one in Loonkaran Sethia, as the plaintiff was suing as a partner of an unregistered firm for the benefit of the firm.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the lower court granting a temporary injunction. The court held that the suit was barred by Section 69 of the Partnership Act and that the application for temporary injunction was not maintainable.
( 1 ) THIS first appeal from order has been filed by two of the defendants in a suit against an order dt. 11th April, 1986 passed by the III Addl. Civil Judge, Meerut, issuing a temporary injunction as prayed for by plaintiff-respondent 1.
( 2 ) THE case in a nutshell of plaintiff-respondent 1 was that he was a partner of a firm run under the name and style of M/s. Chaudhari and Company, 4 Civil Lines, Meerut. According to him the said firm existed prior to 31st Jan. 1984 with six partners under a partnership deed dt. 3rd April, 1982. The plaintiff was not a partner of that firm. His case further was that the old partnership was dissolved on 31st Jan. 1984. With effect from Ist Feb. 1984 the above firm was reconstituted whereby two old partners retired and six new partners including the plaintiff were included into the partnership. The case of the plaintiff-respondent further was that M/s. Chaudhari and Company had entered into a contract with the State Government for construction of a canal and that the Executive Engineer Meerut Division, Ganga Canal, Meerut, defendant 1 was the Engineer in charge, who was supervising the work of construction of the said canal. In connection with that contract payments were made by defendant 1 to M/s. M. S. Chaudhary and Company. The relief prayed for in the suit as also in the application for temporary injunction was that defendant 1 may be restrained from delivering the cross or payees account cheques of M/s. M. S. Chaudhary and Company in respect of the aforesaid constructions work to Sri Mahendra Singh Chaudhary or anybody else or any of the partners itself except to the plaintiff and Sri Mahendra Singh Chaudhary.
( 3 ) THE application far temporary injunction was contested by Sri Mahendra Singh Chaudhary. At this place it may be pointed out that Mahendra Singh Chaudhary was a partner of the firm which is said to have been dissolved on 31st Jan. 1984 and he is also a partner of the firm said to have been constituted afresh on Ist Feb. 1984.
( 4 ) THE case of the plaintiff was that after the new partnership came into being a power of attorney was executed by eight partners other than the plaintiff and Mahendra Singh Chaudhary whereunder payments to M/s. M. S. Chaudhary and Company were to be made jointly to the plaintiff and to Mahendra Singh Chaudhary. The case of the plaintiff further was that the cheques which were being paid to Mahendra Singh Chaudhary alone were being mis-utilised by him. In other words according to the plaintiff on account of cheques payable to M/s. M. S. Chaudhary and Company being paid to Mahendra Singh Chaudhary alone the interests of the newly constituted firm on Ist Feb. 1984 were being jeopardised. Obviously it was in order to safeguard the interest of this newly constituted firm that the suit for injunction was filed by the plaintiff and the application for temporary injunction on which the order appealed against was passed was made therein.
( 5 ) IT has been urged by counsel for the appellants that this fact not having been disputed that the firm said to have been constituted on Ist Feb. 1984 was unregistered, the suit in which the application for temporary injunction was made itself was barred by S. 69, Partnership. Act, and consequently no temporary injunction could be granted on an application made in such a suit. Counsel for the appellants in the alternative also submitted that the plaintiff had failed to make out a prima facie case, that the balance of convenience was also not in favour of the plaintiff and that in case the application for temporary injunction was dismissed, the plaintiff was not likely to suffer any irreparable injury and the application for temporary injunction was liable to be dismissed on this ground also.
( 6 ) HAVING heard counsel for the parties we are of opinion that there is substance in the submission made by counsel for the appellants that the suit was barred by S. 69, Partnership Act. In this view of the matter we do not find
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.