Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

29. The petitioner admits that though Unregistered Partnership Deed was drawn on 10.05.1993 vide Ex.R-51 between the parties before the Court, it was never acted upon either by the petitioner or by the respondents herein.

30. On the other hand, it is the case of the respondents/claimants that pursuant to the contributions made by them and by Dr.G.Srinivasan for and on behalf of the 4th/2nd respondent, an unregistered Partnership Deed was drawn on 10.05.1993 between the parties hereto capturing the contribution of the parties https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis as below:-

“17. As such the cases where right to get enforced arbitration clauses, cannot be equated to the cases for enforcement of property rights under the agreements of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis unregistered partnerships. To the risk of repetition and pleonasm but without being tautologous, I would like to point out that what is prohibited under Section 69 (1) of the Indian Partnership Act, is only an embargo for the unregistered partnership firm as well as the partners, to approach the civil court and not any other forum. Arbitration proceedings cannot be equated to that of civil court proceedings. As such, I am of the firm opinion that this suit is nothing but a suit based on the contract, which emerged between the partners of the unregistered partnership and the suit is only for the purpose of enforcement of the right contemplated there in.”

121. Relevant Portion of the Impugned Award of the Arbitral Tribunal insofar as this aspect is concerned, reads as under:-

20….. I am unable to accept the submission and it is well settled that the arbitration proceedings are not strictly governed by the strict rule of evidence or pleadings. The facts of the case would clearly show that the Claimants have filed C.S.No.555/2006 on the file of the High Court, Madras for a declaration that the suit property is partnership property. Since the partnership deed is an unregistered deed, the Hon'ble High Court, Madras in A.No.2103/2008 in C.S.No.555/2006 by order dt. 28.08.2009 (Ex.R99) held that in view of the embargo found in section 69 of the Indian Indian Partnership Act for the unregistered partnership as well as the partners to approach the civil court, the Hon'ble High Court held that the suit is not maintainable and the plaint has to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure and accordingly it was rejected. It was not a decision on merits of the case as in view of the embargo u/s. 69(1) of the Indian Indian Partnership Act the suit between the two partners ol an unregistered partnership firm was held to be prohibited. After the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court on 28.8.2009 the legal notice under 18.11.2009 (C28) for appointment of Arbitrator was issued on behalf of the Claimants. The suit was instituted on 6.7.2006 and the plaint was rejected on 28.8.2009. I hold that the Claimants approached the civil court which is a wrong forum for enforcement of the rights under the partnership deed and if that is not so, there would not have been any occasion for the Claimants to approach the civil court seeking the declaratory relief.Moreover it must be mentioned here that in O.P.No.15/2011 filed u/s.11 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act in para 25 of the petition, the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Claimants have stated that the period of limitation to be excluded from the date of presentation of the plaint till the rejection of plaint in C.S.No.555/2006 and the Claimants were acting bonafide in filing the suit C.S.No.555/2006 which was ultimately rejected on the technical ground by the Hon'ble High Court, Madras and the Claimants have stated that the present claim for appointment of Arbitrator is well within the period of limitation. On the basis of the pleadings, the Hon'ble Chief Justice in O.P.No.15/2011 by order dt.5.9.2014 appointed Hon'ble Mr. Justice Doraisamy Raju, Judge, Supreme Court of India as Arbitrator. Since Hon'ble Mr.Justice Doraisamy Raju recused himself from the proccedings, the present Arbitral Tribunal was appointed by Hon'ble Chief Justice on 23.12.2015. The 1st respondent has filed a petition for review of the order and the Hon'ble Chief Justice in A.No.435/2015 in O.P.No.15/2011 dt.30.10.2015 held that there appcars to be no impediment in the arbitration proceedings for deciding the merits of the dispute interse the parties and dismissed the review application. As against the order of Hon'ble Chief Justice, SLP (C)No.8281/2016 was filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and Hon'ble Supreme Court of India by order dt.2.5.2016 dismissed the Special Leave Petition. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in S.B.P. & Co vs Patel Engineering Ltd. &Anr on 26 October, 2005 held as under:-
“17. The outlines of the scheme briefly as follows and are:
The English precedent in so far as it makes registration compulsory and imposes penalty for non-registration has not been followed, as it is considered that this step would be too drastic for a beginning in India and would https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis introduce all the difficulties connected with small and ephemeral undertakings. Instead, it is proposed that registration should lie entirely within the discretion of the firm or partner concerned; but, following the English precedent, any firm which is nor registered will be unable to enforce its claims against third parties in the Civil Courts; and any partner who is not registered will be unable to enforce his claims either against third parties or against his fellow partners. One exeption to this disability is made – An unregistered partner in any firm, registered or unregistered, may sue for dissolution of the firm. This exception is made on the unregistered, may sue for dissolution of the firm. This exception is made on the principle that registration is designed primarily to protect third parties, and the absence of registration need not prevent the disappearance of an unregistered or imperfectly registered firm. Under this scheme a small firm or a firm created for a single venture not meeting with difficulty in getting payment, need never register; and even a firm with a large business need not register until it is faced with litigation. Registration may then be effected at any time before the suit is instituted. The rights of third parties to sue the firm or any partner are left intact.”