9911796707
TMI Blog1934 (7) TMI 16X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a certain sum of money. The learned Munsif has dismissed the suit on the ground that Section 69, Clause (2), Partnership Act of 1932 is a bar against the present suit. It is not disputed before us that the petitioner and the opposite party (2) constituted a firm as contemplated by Section 4, Partnership Act, and that the said firm has not been registered as required by the Act. It is not also dis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the new Act. Prima facie such an enactment would be unjust, no opportunities were given to them to register for no fault of theirs, they would be deprived of the right to enforce a claim which accrued to them before the Act came into operation. In order to obviate this hardship the legislature suspended the operation of Section 69 for a, year in order to give unregistered firms a reasonable ch ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hich deals with procedure only, i.e., the mode in which a right of action already existing shall be asserted, may be considered as retrospective in its operation and may be held to apply prima facie to all actions; pending as well as future: see Krimbray v. Draper, (1867) 3 QB 160 at 163 (Blackburn, J.). The legislature therefore wanted to save expressly the pending litigations in respect of right ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... already pointed out the other section in the Act would go to indicate that the intention of the legislature was to bring Section 69 into operation against the firms, if they do not register themselves or if they do not take proceedings respecting antecedent matters within a year from the date of the commencement of the Act. Section 74, Clause (b) therefore does not save litigations started after t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
