2003 (2) TMI 63 - SC - Income Tax

Whether an award by which residue assets of a partnership firm are distributed amongst the partners on dissolution of the partnership firm requires registration under section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908? Held that - The award seeks to distribute the residue after settlement of accounts on dissolution, while distributing their residue the arbitrators allocated the properties to the partners. The award in such circumstances did not requite registration under section 17(1) of the Registration Act. The appeals are accordingly allowed. The judgment of the High Court is hereby set aside. The result would be that the objections against the award dated October 2, 1972, stand rejected and the award is ordered to be made a rule of the court.

Summary

Issues: Whether an award distributing residue assets of a partnership firm among partners on dissolution requires registration under section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908?

Analysis:
The case involved a partnership firm with disputes resolved through arbitration resulting in an award challenged on various grounds. The trial court accepted objections claiming misconduct by arbitrators and the need for registration under section 17 of the Registration Act. The High Court upheld the registration requirement but rejected the misconduct claim. The Supreme Court analyzed the award, emphasizing that a partnership firm's assets belong to the partners individually, and on dissolution, assets are distributed without transfer of ownership. Referring to a previous case, the court clarified that distribution of assets post-dissolution does not necessitate registration under section 17. The court dismissed the argument based on a different case, concluding that the present award did not require registration. Consequently, the appeals were allowed, the High Court's judgment was set aside, objections to the award were rejected, and the award was ordered to be enforced by the court. No costs were awarded in the case.