Partnership Act, 1932 – s.69(2) – Bar under – When not attracted – Held: To attract the bar of s.69(2), the contract in question must be the one entered into by firm with the third-party defendant and must also be the one entered into by the plaintiff firm in the course of its business dealings – s.69(2) is not a bar to a suit filed by an unregistered firm, if the same is for enforcement of a statutory right or a common law right – In the present case, the transaction in question was not the one entered into by the appellantplaintiff, an unregistered partnership firm during the course of its business (i.e., of building construction), and it was an independent transaction of sale, of the firm’s share in the suit property, to the contesting defendants – Thus, the bar of s.69(2) is not attracted in relation to the said sale transaction – Moreover, the subject suit cannot be said to be the one for enforcement of right arising from a contract, rather the subject suit is clearly the one where the plaintiff seeks common law remedies with the allegations of fraud and misrepresentation as also of the statutory rights of injunction and declaration in terms of the provisions of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 as also the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (while alleging want of the sale consideration) – Therefore, the bar of s.69(2) does not apply to the present case – Trial Court rightly appreciated the facts of the case and rejected the baseless application moved by the contesting respondents – Impugned order of High Court set aside – Trial Court to proceed with trial of the suit in accordance with law – Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Umesh Goel v. Himachal Pradesh Co-operative Group Housing Society Ltd: (2016) 11 SCC 313 : [2016] 6 SCR 703; Farooq v. Sandhya Anthraper Kurishingal and Ors. (2018) 12 SCC 580 – held inapplicable. Haldiram Bhujiawala and Anr. v. Anand Kumar Deepak Kumar and Anr: (2000) 3 SCC 250 : [2000] 1 SCR
1247; Raptakos Brett & Co. Ltd. v. Ganesh
Property (1998) 7 SCC 184 : [1998] 1 Suppl. SCR 485; Purushottam and Anr. v. Shivraj Fine Art Litho Works and Ors. (2007) 15 SCC 58 : [2006] 8 Suppl. SCR 524 – relied on.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.