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

1977 Supreme(All) 90

Allahbad High Court
R.B.MISRA,J.M.L.SINHA
Iqbal Singh - Appellant
Versus
Ram Narain - Respondent
Decided On : 04/06/1977

Advocates:
S.D. Agarwal, for Appellants; K.C. Saksena, for Respondents.

An application under S. 20 of the Arbitration Act by an unregistered partnership is barred by S. 69 of the Partnership Act.

Headnote:

PARTNERSHIP ACT - S. 69 - ARBITRATION ACT - S. 20 - APPLICATION UNDER S. 20 OF THE ARBITRATION ACT BY UNREGISTERED PARTNERSHIP - MAINTAINABILITY - BAR UNDER S. 69 OF THE PARTNERSHIP ACT.

Fact of the Case:

An unregistered partnership entered into an agreement with an arbitration clause. A dispute arose, and the respondents gave notice to the appellants determining the partnership and asking for the appointment of arbitrators. The appellants moved an application under S. 20 of the Arbitration Act. The application was resisted by the respondents on the ground that the partnership, being unregistered, the application under S. 20 of the Arbitration Act was barred by S. 69 of the Indian Partnership Act.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the application under S. 20 of the Arbitration Act was barred by S. 69 of the Partnership Act. The court reasoned that the proceedings arising out of the application under S. 20 were proceedings to enforce a right arising from a contract, and therefore, were covered by the expression "other proceedings" contained in sub-s. (3) of S. 69. The court further held that the exception provided in Cl. (a) of sub-s. (3) of S. 69, which excludes from the ambit of sub-s. (3) suits for the dissolution of a firm or for accounts of a dissolved firm, did not apply to the present case, as the application under S. 20 was neither for the dissolution of a firm nor for the accounts of a dissolved firm.

Issues: Whether an application under S. 20 of the Arbitration Act by an unregistered partnership is maintainable.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the application under S. 20 of the Arbitration Act was barred by S. 69 of the Partnership Act. The court reasoned that the proceedings arising out of the application under S. 20 were proceedings to enforce a right arising from a contract, and therefore, were covered by the expression "other proceedings" contained in sub-s. (3) of S. 69. The court further held that the exception provided in Cl. (a) of sub-s. (3) of S. 69, which excludes from the ambit of sub-s. (3) suits for the dissolution of a firm or for accounts of a dissolved firm, did not apply to the present case, as the application under S. 20 was neither for the dissolution of a firm nor for the accounts of a dissolved firm.

Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed.

Judgement

J. M. L. SINHA, J. :- This is a First Appeal from order dated 20th December, 1975, passed by the Civil Judge, Allahabad in proceedings under S. 20 of the Arbitration Act.

2. The facts of the case, briefly, stated are as under:

The parties entered into a partnership business to carry out contract work of the Government and in that connection an agreement was entered into between them. One of the clauses in the agreement provided for settlement of all disputes between the parties by arbitration. Dispute having arisen, the respondents gave notice to the appellants determining the partnership and asking for appointment of arbitrators. That having proved abortive, the plaintiff appellants moved an application under S. 20 of the Arbitration Act. The application was resisted by the respondents inter alia, -on the ground, that, the partnership, being unregistered, the application under S. 20 of the Arbitration Act was barred by S. 69 of the Indian Partnership Act. This objection found favour with the learned Civil Judge with the result that the application under S. 20 of the Arbitration Act was dismissed as not maintainable, Feeling aggrieved against that order the plaintiffs have come up in appeal before this Court.

3. The limited question for consideration in this appeal is whether the application under S, 20 of the Arbitration Act, that was moved by the plaintiff appellants, was hit by S. 69 of the Arbitration Act.

4. Sub-s. (1) of S. 69 of the Partnership Act states that no suit to enforce a right arising from a contract or conferred by the Partnership Act -can 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 shown in the Register of Firms as a partner, Sub-s. (2) of S. 69 states that no suit to enforce a right arising from a contract can 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. Sub-s. (3) of S. 69 states that the provisions of sub-s. (1) and sub-s. (2) shall also apply to a claim of set-off or other proceedings to enforce a right -arising from a contract but nothing contained in sub-ss. (1) and (2) shall affect the enforcement of any right to sue for the dissolution of a firm or for accounts of a dissolved firm or any right to realise the property of a dissolved firm.

5. Now, in the instant case, it was admitted on .both hands that there was a partnership between the parties which was not registered. It was also not disputed that the application under S. 20 of the Arbitration Act was moved by the appellants in pursuance of an arbitration clause contained in the agreement executed between the parties. By sub-s. (3) of S. 69 the legislature made applicable the provisions contained in sub-ss. (1) and (2) also to proceedings other than suits, if those proceedings are instituted to enforce a right arising from a contract. Now, since the application under S. 20 of the Arbitration Act was filed by the appellants in view of the arbitration clause existing in the agreement executed between the parties, it is manifest that the proceedings arising out of the application under S. 20 were proceedings to enforce the right arising from the contract as envisaged in sub-s. (3) of S. 69.

6. Some effort was initially made by the learned counsel for the appellants to urge that the proceedings under S. 20 of the Arbitration Act would not be proceedings within the meaning of that expression used in sub-s. (3) of S. 69. However, for the reasons already stated, that argument is without any substance. It may not be out of place to mention here that the point also stands concluded by a couple of decisions.

7. In the case of Jagdish Chandra v. Kajaria Traders (India) Ltd. (AIR 1964 SC 1882), in view of an agreement between the parties


















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