TMI Blog2001 (12) TMI 894X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5,000/- as security deposit. Thereafter the partnership firm of the defendant was converted into a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. up to September, 1984 defendants were supplying the goods to the plaintiff on documents through bank system. The plaintiffs used to pay the value of the supplies into the bank and obtain the lorry receipts for release of the goods. The defendants from October 1984 stopped the system and adopted the cheque system under which the defendants collected blank cheques in advance from the plaintiffs and the defendants filled in those cheques for the amount of supplies made by them and they presented the cheques to their bankers for collection. Under this system the plaintiffs from time to time hande ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... territory allotted to the plaintiff. The understanding between the parties for the appointment of sub-stockist was that plaintiffs were to get 2% additional discount. The plaintiffs thus were entitled to ₹ 34,838/-. It has been asserted that it was a usual practice of the defendants to operate various market scheme through their stockists. These scheme include consumer offer, rebate, free issue gifts. The plaintiffs had incurred an expenditure to the tune of ₹ 1 lakh on this count and are entitled to the refund of the same. Lastly it is claimed that defendants introduced scheme called Ex-godown on BABOOL tooth paste. As per this scheme stockists were given additional discount on the sale of BABOOL Toothpaste and plaintiffs are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enied that the suit is barred by time or that Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act bars further filing of the suit. 7. Sub-section (2) to Section 69 of the Partnership Act reads as under:- (2) No suit to enforce a right arising from a contract shall be instituted in any Court by or on behalf of a firm against any third party unless the firm is registered and the persons suing and or have been shown in the Registered firms as partners in the firm. x x x x x x x x x x 8. Perusal of the relevant provision referred to above clearly show that if a person is to enforce a right arising from a contract then if the firm is unregistered as a partnership firm then under Sub-section (2) to Section 69 the firm is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s not disputed but herein it is not the plaintiff's case that his cause of action is on breach of statutory obligation. As referred to above the plaintiff claims refund and the payments based on a contract that was between the parties. The plaintiff was the stockist of the defendant and indeed this was the contract and for whatever reasons the plaintiff seek the refund or the payment, it must be stated that it was arising from the contract between the parties. Thus Sub-section (2) to Section 69 would clearly bar the filing of the suit. 13. In that event it was contended that suit for declaration in any case would be maintainable whereby the plaintiff seeks that the cheques purported to be procured by the defendants are null and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
