Partnership suit dismissed for non-registration under Indian Partnership Act. Upheld security order for goods sold.

The suit was dismissed by the Supreme Court due to non-registration of the partnership under Section 69(2) of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932. The appellants acknowledged the dismissal was warranted as the partnership was unregistered. The Court upheld the High Court's order for the appellants to provide security for goods sold under an interim order, emphasizing the restitutionary principle to restore parties to their original positions. The appeals were dismissed, and costs of Rs. 25,000 were awarded to the respondent.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Dismissal of the suit due to non-registration of the partnership u/s 69(2) of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932.
2. Restitution of the goods or their money-value sold under interim orders.

Summary:

Issue 1: Dismissal of the Suit
The suit was dismissed on the undisputed ground that it was hit by Sub-section (2) of Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 due to the non-registration of the partnership. The appellants conceded that the suit was liable to be dismissed as the partnership was not registered on the date of institution of the suit. The correctness of this view and the consequent dismissal of the suit were not questioned before the Supreme Court.

Issue 2: Restitution of Goods or Money-Value
The appellants had sold goods worth Rs. 32.40 lakhs under the authority of an ex-parte interim order. The learned Single Judge of the High Court directed the appellants to furnish security for the value of the goods sold, amounting to Rs. 25.40 lakhs (Rs. 32.40 lakhs less Rs. 7 lakhs already paid to the respondent). The Division Bench of the High Court upheld this order.

The Supreme Court examined the scope of restitutionary jurisdiction and noted that the principle of restitution is inherent in the general jurisdiction of the court to act rightly and fairly according to the circumstances towards all parties involved. The Court observed that the High Court's direction to furnish security was appropriate to restore the parties to the position they would have occupied but for the erroneous interim order.

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, affirming the High Court's order directing the appellants to furnish security for Rs. 25.40 lakhs. The Court emphasized that no act of the court should harm a litigant and that the court has a duty to rectify any harm caused by its orders. The appeals were dismissed with costs quantified at Rs. 25,000 payable to the respondent.

---