Whether suit filed by unregistered firm is tenable if it is for enforcement of statutory right or common law right?

  In our view, the questions arising in this matter could be directly answered with reference to the principles enunciated by this Court in the case of Raptakos Brett & Co. Ltd. v. Ganesh Property: (1998) 7 SCC 184, which have further been explained and applied by this Court in the cases of Haldiram Bhujiawala and Purushottam (supra). We may take note of the principles vividly exposited in the case of Haldiram Bhujiawala (supra) that to attract the bar of Section 69(2) of the Act of 1932, 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; and that Section 69(2) of the Act of 1932 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. {Para 15}

Supreme Court

JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI JUSTICE VIKRAM NATH

SHIV DEVELOPERS THROUGH ITS PARTNER SUNILBHAI SOMABHAI AJMERI Vs. AKSHARAY DEVELOPERS & ORS.

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 785 OF 2022

31st January 2022

Author: DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.

Citation: 2022 ALL SCR (ONLINE) 103

Print Page

Whether eviction suit filed by unregistered partnership firm is maintainable?

Contention was raised that the suit was not maintainable since the same was filed by an unregistered firm. Repelling the contention court took the view that a suit for eviction is maintainable by an unregistered firm as such a suit is not a suit to enforce an agreement but a right therefor accrues to a landlord by reason of the provisions of the statute namely Rent Act. We are in agreement with the Patna High Court that the right of a landlord to determine a tenancy. arises under a statute, namely, Transfer of Property Act and later by Rent. Act. The Bombay High Court in Kajaria Traders (India) Ltd. v. Foreign Imports and Exports Association. MANU/MH/0013/1961 : AIR 1961 Bom 65 held that the right to make an application under section 8 of the Arbitration Act for appointment of an arbitrator or arbitrators is a statutory right and not arising from a contract, though it is not conferred in connection with a contract. Landlord is not enforcing his right arising from a contract, but seeking eviction on the basis of the provisions of the Rent Act which is a statutory right, therefore section 69(2) would not be a bar if a petition is filed by the unregistered firm as a landlord. The petition filed by an unregistered firm for eviction is therefore maintainable.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA

CRP. No. 606 of 1997 (D)

Decided On: 18.03.2004

 Dungarsi Ranchhodas  Vs.  Moolji Visanji

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

K.S. Panicker Radhakrishnan and Pius C. Kuriakose, JJ.

Print Page

Whether Cheque bounce case is maintainable if unregistered partnership firm is not made accused?

 An interesting issue has come up for consideration before this
Court. The question involved in this case is whether an unregistered
Partnership Firm can also be brought within the purview of Section 141 of
the Negotiable Instruments Act, and in such cases whether the Partnership
Firm must be made as an accused along with the other partners, in order to
maintain a complaint for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act ?
 Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act deals with the
concept of vicarious liability, wherein for the offence committed by the
Company or a partnership firm, the directors or the partners, as the case
may, are deemed to be guilty of the offence when it is shown that they are
in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the day-to-day affairs of the
business or the firm, as the case may be. While interpreting the provision,
the Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically held that the complaint cannot
be maintained against the directors of the Company, without making the
company as an accused person. This concept has been extended even for
Partnership Firms. The registration or non-registration of the Partnership
Firm will have no bearing insofar as 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is
concerned.
20. In view of the above discussion, this Court is not in agreement
with the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondent. In
this case admittedly, the cheque was given in the name of the Partnership
Firm and after the cheque was dishonored, no statutory notice was issued to
the Partnership Firm, and the Partnership Firm was not made as an accused
in the complaint. Only the partners have been shown as accused persons in
this complaint. Such a complaint is unsustainable and not in accordance

with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the law laid down
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 23.07.2019
CORAM
MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
CRL.O.P No.13147 of 2015
and Crl.M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2015

Rangabashyam Vs. Ramesh 

Print Page

Whether right of examination of goods and right of rejection of goods are two statutory rights of buyer?

In fact, it may be seen that the right of examination of the
goods and the consequent right of rejection of the goods which are two
statutory rights of the respondent as the buyer would be defeated because
the respondent would not have reasonable opportunity of examining the
goods and a reasonable time to reject the goods outside the period of 30
days specified in Clause 4.2(b) of the Contract. Such an agreement would
be void under Section 23 of the Contract Act because if permitted it would
defeat the provisions contained in Sections 41 & 42 of the Sale of Goods
Act.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 398 OF 2014
JSW Steel Ltd. .. Petitioner
Vs.
AI Ghuriar Iron & Steel LLC .. Respondent

CORAM : MRS. ROSHAN DALVI, J.

Date of pronouncing the Judgment : 20 th AUGUST, 2014 .
Citation;2015(2) ALLMR60,AIR 2015(NOC)448 BOM
Read original judgment; click here

Print Page