9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Section 69(2) of the Partnership Act, 1932. 2. Interpretation of Section 74 of the Partnership Act, 1932. 3. Registration of the firm during the pendency of the suit. Detailed Analysis: 1. Applicability of Section 69(2) of the Partnership Act, 1932: The plaintiff's suit was dismissed by the Small Cause Court on the grounds that it was brought by an unregistered firm, which is barred by Section 69(2) of the Partnership Act, 1932. Section 69(2) stipulates, "No suit to enforce a right arising from a contract shall 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 in the firm." The court emphasized that this section requires a firm to be registered before it can initiate a suit. The Act provided a one-year grace period from its commencement on 1st October 1932, to allow unregistered firms to register before the enforcement of Section 69. 2. Interpretation of Section 74 of the Partnership Act, 1932: The applicant argued that Section 74, which states that the Act shall not affect any right, title, interest, obligation, or liability acquired before the commencement of the Act, should prevent Section 69(2) from applying to their case. Section 74(b) specifically states, "Nothing in this Act or any repeal effected thereby shall affect or be deemed to affect, - (b) any legal proceeding or remedy in respect of any such right, title, interest, obligation or liability, or anything done or suffered before the commencement of this Act." The court, however, interpreted that Section 74 deals with substantive rights and not procedural rules. It was concluded that the legal proceedings or remedies must still follow the procedure laid down by the Act, including Section 69(2). This interpretation was supported by analogies from the General Clauses Act, 1897, and prior rulings such as Surendra Nath De v. Ktanohar De and Firm Ram Prasad Thakur Prasad v. Firm Kamta Prasad Sita Ram, which held that Section 69 applies to suits filed after 1st October 1933, regardless of when the cause of action arose. 3. Registration of the firm during the pendency of the suit: The plaintiff's firm became registered on 27th June 1934, and the certificate was filed in court on 27th July 1934, two days before the case was heard. The plaintiff's counsel requested an amendment to the plaint, arguing that the defect was cured by the registration during the suit's pendency. However, the court did not find this argument persuasive. It was held that Section 69's requirements are imperative, stating, "No suit shall be instituted unless the firm is registered and the person suing is or has been shown in the Register of firms as a partner in the firm." The court compared this to the rejection of a plaint under Order 7, Rule 11, of the Civil Procedure Code, where the remedy is to file a fresh plaint. Therefore, the plaintiff's remedy was to file a fresh plaint to avoid any part of it being barred by limitation. Conclusion: The court dismissed the civil revision with costs, affirming that the provisions of Section 69 must be followed, and the registration of the firm during the pendency of the suit did not cure the initial defect. The application for revision was dismissed, and the plaintiff was advised to file a fresh plaint.
|
