Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether an application under Section 8(2) of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 for appointment of an arbitrator was barred by Section 69(3) of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 in the case of an unregistered partnership.
Analysis: The proceeding under Section 8(2) had its origin in the arbitration clause and was therefore a proceeding to enforce a right arising from contract. The expression "other proceeding" in Section 69(3) was held not to be cut down by the preceding words "a claim of set-off". The statutory setting showed that the Legislature used "other proceeding" in a broad sense, and the doctrine of ejusdem generis could not be invoked because "claim of set-off" did not disclose a genus capable of restricting the general words. The bar in Section 69(3) thus extended to proceedings of any kind enforcing contractual rights, subject only to the express exceptions in the section.
Conclusion: The application under Section 8(2) was barred by Section 69(3), and the appeal succeeded.
Ratio Decidendi: The words "other proceeding" in Section 69(3) of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 are of wide import and include any proceeding to enforce a contractual right, and they are not restricted by the doctrine of ejusdem generis to proceedings similar to a claim of set-off.