Partnership Act registration bar does not defeat a cheque dishonour complaint under the Negotiable Instruments Act.

Section 69(2) of the Partnership Act, 1932 is confined to suits for enforcement of contractual rights and does not extend to criminal prosecution under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. A complaint for cheque dishonour is a penal proceeding, not a suit for money recovery, so non-registration of the firm does not affect maintainability. The trial court's rejection of the complaint at the threshold was therefore incorrect, and the maintainability objection based on firm registration fails.

---

---

Issues: Whether section 69(2) of the Partnership Act, 1932 bars a criminal complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 filed by or on behalf of an unregistered partnership firm.

Analysis: Section 69(2) bars only the institution of a suit to enforce a contractual right and does not extend to criminal prosecution. A complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is not a proceeding for recovery of money but a penal proceeding for dishonour of cheque. Non-registration of the firm therefore has no legal bearing on maintainability of the criminal complaint, and the trial court was wrong in rejecting it at the threshold.

Conclusion: Section 69(2) of the Partnership Act, 1932 does not bar a criminal complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 by an unregistered firm, and the objection to maintainability fails in favour of the petitioner.

Ratio Decidendi: The statutory bar under section 69(2) of the Partnership Act applies only to civil suits for enforcement of contractual rights and not to criminal prosecution under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

---