2010 (1) AIR Bom R 673 ::2010 A I H C 2182 ::AIR 2010 (NOC) (SUPP) 1122 (BOM.)

Bombay High Court

Hon'ble Judge(s): J. H. Bhatia , J

(A) Partnership Act (9 of 1932) S. 69 (2-A) (as inserted by Maharashtra Amendment Act, 1984), S. 3— Non-registration of Firm — Effect — Sub-section 2-A holding that no suit can be filed by partner or erstwhile partner for dissolution of Firm or for accounts if Firm is not registered was struck down by Supreme Court as unconstitutional — Therefore, it must be presumed that it was never part of the law — Consequently suit for dissolution of Firm or for accounts of dissolved Firm etc , would be maintainable even if Firm was not registered 2009 (4) AIR Bom R 225,Rel on {" As per the Maharashtra amendment, even a suit for dissolution of the Firm or for accounts of the dissolved Firm could not be filed by partner or erstwhile partner if the partnership Firm was not registered. This provision was in conflict with the original sub-section 3(a) of Section 69. Supreme Court in case reported in 2009 (3) All MR 418 held that sub-section 2(A) is totally arbitrary, ultra vires and unconstitutional and therefore it was struck down. If sub-section 2-A is kept aside, the case would be governed by Section 69(1) and (3). Suit for dissolution of the Firm or for accounts of the dissolved Firm or any right or power to realize the property of a dissolved Firm may be filed even though the partnership Firm was not registered. (Para 9,10,11) "} .....