Section 69(2) Partnership Act Does Not Bar Suit Filed By An Unregistered Firm If Contract In Question Was Not In The Course Of Its Business Dealings

Case: Shiv Developers Through Its Partner Sunilbhai Somabhai Ajmeri Vs Aksharay Developers

Coram: Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Vikram Nath

Case No.: CA 785 OF 2022

Court Observations: “We may take note of the principles vividly exposited in the case of Haldiram Bhujiawala (supra) that to attract the bar of Section 69(2) of the Act of 1932, the contract in question must be the one entered into by firm with the third-party defendant and must also be the one entered into by the plaintiff firm in the course of its business dealings; and that Section 69(2) of the Act of 1932 is not a bar to a suit filed by an unregistered firm, if the same is for enforcement of a statutory right or a common law right”.

To put it differently, the relevant principles, when applied to the facts of the present case, leave nothing to doubt that the transaction in question was not the one entered into by the plaintiff firm during the course of its business (i.e., of building construction); and it had been an independent transaction of sale, of the firm’s share in the suit property, to the contesting defendants. The bar of Section 69(2) is not attracted in relation to the said sale transaction. Moreover, the subject suit cannot be said to be the one for enforcement of right arising from a contract; rather the subject suit is clearly the one where the plaintiff seeks common law remedies with the allegations of fraud and misrepresentation as also of the statutory rights of injunction and declaration in terms of the provisions of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 as also the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (while alleging want of the sale consideration). Therefore, the bar of Section 69(2) of the Act of 1932 does not apply to the present case.

Previous Posts

State Cannot Dictate What Decisions Can Or Cannot Be Taken By A Public Trust: Supreme Court

High Courts With Original Civil Jurisdiction Can Also Execute Foreign Decrees Under Section 44A of CPC: Supreme Court

Reservation In Promotion- Supreme Court Declares That Its Judgment In M. Nagaraj Shall Have Only Prospective Effect

Sanction U/S 197 CrPC Required To Prosecute Public Servants If Alleged Act Committed Is Directly Concerned With Official Duty: Supreme Court

Advocates Have Right To Practice Before Maintenance Tribunals: Delhi HC Declares S.17 Of Senior Citizens Act Ultra Vires To S.30 Advocate Act

Trial Judges Work Amidst Appalling Conditions; Colonial Mindset Towards District Judiciary Must Change: Supreme Court Download Judgement

Keywords

Partnership Act, Section 69(2)