9911796707
TMI Blog1989 (7) TMI 345X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d on Dec. 12, 1972. 2. The appellants are a firm registered under the Partnership Act, 1932 and inter alia carry on the business of hire-purchased automobile vehicles. The appellants were the owners of a diesel truck complete with tools and other accessories. On January 24, 1962 respondent No. 1 hired the said truck from the appellants under a Hire-Purchase Agreement in writing of the same date. Under the said agreement, respondent No. 1 agreed to pay to the appellants a sum of ₹ 10,000/- as initial hire charges and certain monthly hire charges. It was provided under the said agreement that on the payment of all the monthly hire charges and other amounts payable under the agreement on the respective due dates and fulfilment of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o appreciate the controversy before us, it is necessary to take note of a few further facts none of which is disputed. 4. The appellant-firm was registered under the Partnership Act, 1932 on Nov. 2, 1960. There was a change in the Constitution of the firm on July 1, 1962 but we are not concerned with that change. What is material is that, on July I, 1967, there was another change in the Constitution of the firm whereby two of the then partners retired and one new partner, namely, Smt. Sarita Agarwal joined as a partner of the said firm; and two minors, namely, Ashish Kumar and Rohit Kumar were admitted to the benefits of the said partnership firm. On the said date, namely, July 1, 1967, two of the then partners, namely, Smt. Sheela R. Ag ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the suit was filed, two of the partners shown as partners as per the relevant entries in the Register of Firms were not, in fact, partners, one new partner had come in and two minors had been admitted to the benefit of the partnership firm regarding which no notice was given to the Registrar of Firms. Thus, the persons suing, namely, the current partners as on the date of the suit were not shown as partners in the Register of Firms. The result is that the suit was not maintainable in view of the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 69 of the said Partnership Act and the view taken by the Trial Court and confirmed by the High Court in this connection is correct. Although the plaint was amended on a later date that cannot save the suit. R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
