Section 69 bar does not prevent consensual arbitration by an unregistered firm, and amended bye-laws allowed a non-member arbitrator.

The bar under section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 applies to suits and other proceedings instituted in court, not to a consensual reference to arbitration made without court intervention by an unregistered firm; the reference and award were therefore not void for non-registration. The objection that the award was invalid because one arbitrator was not a Stock Exchange member also failed, as the relevant bye-laws had been amended in 1993 to permit a non-member on the Tribunal. The challenge to the arbitral award was rejected on both grounds.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the bar under section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 applied to a reference to arbitration made without intervention of the court by an unregistered firm. (ii) Whether the award was invalid because one of the arbitrators was not a member of the Stock Exchange under the relevant bye-laws.

Issue (i): Whether the bar under section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 applied to a reference to arbitration made without intervention of the court by an unregistered firm.

Analysis: The bar in section 69 was held to govern suits and proceedings in court. The expression "other proceeding" in sub-section (3) was read in the same setting as sub-sections (1) and (2), which are confined to proceedings instituted in court. A private reference to arbitration dehors the court was therefore outside the statutory prohibition. Authorities relied on by the appellant were distinguished because they dealt with applications under the Arbitration Act treated as court proceedings, not a consensual reference to arbitration without court intervention.

Conclusion: The statutory bar did not apply, and the reference to arbitration as well as the award were not void on the ground of non-registration.

Issue (ii): Whether the award was invalid because one of the arbitrators was not a member of the Stock Exchange under the relevant bye-laws.

Analysis: The relevant bye-laws had been amended in 1993, and under the amended position a non-member could serve on the Tribunal. The objection therefore lacked merit.

Conclusion: The award was not invalid on the ground that one arbitrator was a non-member.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the arbitral award failed on both grounds, and the appeal was dismissed with costs.

Ratio Decidendi: The bar under section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 extends only to proceedings instituted in court and does not prohibit a consensual reference to arbitration without court intervention.

---