Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.20 seconds)Section 69 in The Indian Partnership Act, 1932 [Entire Act]
M.S.A. Subramania Mudaliar Firm By ... vs The East Asiatic Co. Ltd., By Managing ... on 28 August, 1936
4. Counsel for the respondents, however, invited our attention to two decisions which take a view that subsequent registration of the firm can cure the initial defect provided the registration is before the period of limitation has run out. Our attention was drawn to M.S.A. Subramania Mudaliar v. East Asiatic Co. Ltd, AIR 1936 Mad 991 : 1936 MWN 1144 and Atmuri Mahalakshmi v. Jagadeesh Traders, .
Atmuri Mahalakshmi And Others vs Jagadeesh Traders on 5 December, 1989
4. Counsel for the respondents, however, invited our attention to two decisions which take a view that subsequent registration of the firm can cure the initial defect provided the registration is before the period of limitation has run out. Our attention was drawn to M.S.A. Subramania Mudaliar v. East Asiatic Co. Ltd, AIR 1936 Mad 991 : 1936 MWN 1144 and Atmuri Mahalakshmi v. Jagadeesh Traders, .
Shreeram Finance Corporation vs Yasin Khan And Others on 21 July, 1989
Such an application, says Sub-section (2) thereof, shall be in writing and shall be numbered and registered as a suit. Therefore, an application filed by an unregistered firm under Section 20 would also be treated as a suit and would be hit by Section 69(2) if the firm filing the application is not registered with the Registrar of Firms. This appears to be the position in law which emerges on a plain reading of Section 69 of the Partnership Act and Section 20 of the Arbitration Act. This is the view which this Court took in the case of Shreeram Finance Corpn. v. Yasin Khan, (paras 5 and 6). The fact that it is an application to be registered and numbered as a suit would not make any difference for the obvious reason that though Sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 69 of the Partnership Act refer to a suit, Sub-section (3) thereof makes those sub-sections applicable even "to other proceedings which would include an application registered and numbered as a suit under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act".
The Indian Partnership Act, 1932
T. Savariraj Pillai vs M/S. R.S.S. Vastrad And Company on 3 November, 1989
However, the High Court of Patna in Laduram Sagarmal v. Jamuna Prasad Chaudhuri, AIR 1939 Pat 239 : ILR 18 Pat 114 and the High Court of Madras in T. Savariraj Pillai v. R.S.S. Vastrad & Co., take a contrary view and hold that the suit is incompetent ab initio. We have considered these decisions, but in the light of the plain language of Section 69 of the Partnership Act read with Section 20 of the Arbitration Act and in view of the decision of this Court reported in Shreeram Finance Corporation, , we are clearly of the opinion that proceedings under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act were ab initio defective since the firm was not registered and the subsequent registration of the firm cannot cure that defect.
Jagdish Chander Gupta vs Kajaria Traders (India) Ltd on 29 April, 1964
1