TMI Blog1996 (1) TMI 470X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Authority entered a counter and contested the proceedings on various grounds including the ground of limitation. The learned Single Judge allowed the suit and directed the appointment of an arbitrator. Against that order a first appeal was filed before a Division Bench of the High Court by the respondent. That appeal was dismissed holding that the subsequent registration of the firm cured the initial defect since that was within the period of limitation. Hence this appeal by special leave. 3. Section 69(1) provides that no suit to enforce a right arising from a contract shall be instituted in any court by or on behalf of any person suing as a partner in a firm against the firm or any person alleged to be or to have been a partner in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of any suit with respect to the subject-matter of the agreement or any part of it, and where a difference has arisen to which the agreement applies, they or any of them, instead of proceeding under Chapter II (Chapter II refers to arbitration without intervention of a court) may apply to a court having jurisdiction in the matter to which the agreement relates, that the agreement be filed in court. 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 ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uage 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, [1989]3SCR484 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. 5. In view of the above, we allow this appeal, set aside the order of the High Court and hold that the proceedings were ab initio defective as they could not have been instituted since the firm in whose name the proceedings were instituted was not registered at the date of the institution of the proceedings. We, however, make no order as to costs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
