AIR 2009 SUPREME COURT 1858 ::2009 AIR SCW 3329 ::2009 (4) AIR Bom R 225 ::(2009) 2 CivilCourtC 721 ::2009 (5) SCC 608 ::(2009) 2 RecCivR 622 ::(2009) 4 Scale 459 ::(2009) 2 BankCLR 672 ::(2009) 3 AllMR 418 (SC) ::(2009) 3 Bom CR 790 ::(2009) 4 Mad LJ 120 ::(2009) 5 Mah LJ 120 ::(2009) 3 Mah LJ 946

Supreme Court Of India

(From : 2001 (1) All MR 311 (Bom))

Hon'ble Judge(s): Markandeya Katju, G. S. Singhvi , JJ

Partnership Act (9 of 1932) , S.69(2A)— Validity - Dissolution of unregistered firm - Suit for - Restrictions u/S.69(2A) - Are arbitrary and unreasonable. 2001 (1) All MR 311, Reversed. Constitution of India , Art.14, Art.19(1)(g), Art.300A— The Maharashtra Amendment effects such stringent disabilities on a firm as are crippling in nature. It lays down that an unregistered firm cannot enforce its claims against third parties. Similarly, a partner who is not registered is unable to enforce his claims against third parties or against his fellow partners. An exception to this disability was a suit for dissolution of a firm or a suit for accounts of a dissolved firm or a suit for recovery of property of a dissolved firm. Thus a partnership firm can come into existence, function as long as there is no problem, and disappear from existence without being registered. This is changed by the 1984 Amendment extending the bar of the proceedings to a suit for dissolution or recovery of property as well. The effect of the Amendment is that a partnership firm is allowed to come into existence and function without registration but it cannot go out of existence (with certain exceptions). This can result into a situation where in case of disputes amongst the partners the relationship cannot be put an end to by approaching a Court of law. A dishonest partner, if....