9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Interpretation of the Indian Partnership Act of 1932 regarding registration requirements for a firm. 2. Compliance with Sections 58, 59, and 69 of the Act. 3. Application of Section 74 of the Act to cure irregularities. 4. Determination of the correct date of institution of a suit under the Act. Analysis: The judgment deals with a technical question concerning the Indian Partnership Act of 1932. The plaintiff, claiming to be a firm, filed a plaint which was later amended after obtaining a registration certificate. The defendant objected, citing Section 69 of the Act, stating that the suit was barred as the firm was not registered when the suit was filed. The trial Court rejected the plaint based on this ground, leading to the current application. The argument presented by the plaintiff was that the firm had applied for registration before filing the suit, thus fulfilling the requirements under Section 58 of the Act. However, the Court highlighted that Section 59 mandates the Registrar to be satisfied with the compliance of Section 58 and record the entry in the register. Additionally, Section 69 specifies that a suit cannot be instituted unless the firm is registered and the person suing is listed as a partner, which was not the case at the time of filing the plaint. The applicant contended that Section 74 of the Act could cure any irregularity in the procedure, as their right to sue had accrued before the Act came into force. The Court clarified that while the Act did not affect the right to sue, it regulated the procedure, which must be strictly followed. Section 69 was deemed mandatory, akin to Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code, emphasizing the importance of compliance. Regarding the argument that the suit should be considered instituted on the date of amendment, the Court held that the specific language of Section 69 required registration before institution. As the firm was not registered at the time of filing the suit, the trial Court's decision was upheld. The plaintiff was advised to file a fresh suit and seek the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, leaving the decision on its applicability to the trial Court. Ultimately, the application was dismissed with costs.
|
