Jagat Mittar Saigal v. Kailash Chander Saigal and Another

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1983 Supreme(Online)(Del) 4

DELHI HIGH COURT
, J
Jagat Mittar Saigal v. Kailash Chander Saigal and Another

Table of Content
1. non-registration bars partners from enforcing rights. (Para 1 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 10)
2. arbitration rights maintained for dissolved partnerships. (Para 2 , 4 , 11)
3. court's determination of arbitration applicability. (Para 3 , 8 , 9)
4. past precedents inform current decision regarding arbitration. (Para 12 , 14)
5. outcome confirms enforcement via arbitration despite non-registration. (Para 15)

1. S.69 of the Partnership Act, 1932 lays down the effect of non - registration of a firm on suits to enforce a right arising from a contract by a partner against other partners or by or on behalf of a firm against any third party and provides that such a suit shall not be entertained unless the firm is registered and the person suing is or has been shown in the Register Of Firms as a partner. The question of law raised in this petition under S.8(b) read with S.20(4) of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (for short called the Act) is, as to whether such a petition is barred at the instance of a partner of an unregistered partnership firm.

2. The facts are not in dispute. The petitioner and respondents are brothers and sister. On April 1, 1968 they entered into a partnership agreement to ca