TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court clarifies arbitration scope for unregistered partnerships under Partnership Act</h1> <h3>Krishna Motor Service Versus H.B. Vittala Kamath</h3> Krishna Motor Service Versus H.B. Vittala Kamath - TMI Issues:1. Entitlement to reference under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act for an unregistered partnership firm.2. Interpretation of Section 69(3) of the Partnership Act regarding exceptions to enforce rights arising from a contract.3. Determination of items referable to arbitration in a partnership dissolution dispute.Entitlement to Reference under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act:The case involved a dispute arising from the dissolution of a partnership firm where the respondent, previously a supervisor, became a partner without contributing capital. The respondent sought arbitration under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act. The appellants contended that since the partnership firm was unregistered, the respondent was not entitled to arbitration. The Supreme Court analyzed the exceptions in Section 69(3) of the Partnership Act and held that in cases where the partnership is dissolved by mutual consent and disputes revolve around settlement of accounts or realization of property, the exceptions allow for arbitration despite non-registration. The Court distinguished cases where the right to dissolve the firm itself is in dispute, making arbitration invalid. The respondent was found entitled to arbitration under the exceptions provided.Interpretation of Section 69(3) of the Partnership Act:The Court delved into the interpretation of Section 69(3) of the Partnership Act, emphasizing the exceptions that allow enforcement of rights arising from a contract despite non-registration of the partnership firm. The Court referred to precedents like Jagdish Chandra Gupta's case and Prem Lata's case to establish the applicability of the exceptions in specific scenarios. It was clarified that the exceptions in Section 69(3) provide relief from the prohibition created by non-registration, enabling enforcement of rights related to dissolution, accounts settlement, and property realization, independent of the contract's rights. The mandatory nature of Section 69 and its impact on enforcing rights arising from unregistered partnership contracts were thoroughly discussed.Determination of Items Referable to Arbitration:The Court scrutinized the items sought for arbitration, including profit and loss accounts, goodwill compensation, vehicle ownership, and post-dissolution transactions. It was ruled that certain items fell within the exceptions of Section 69(3), allowing arbitration, while others, originating from the contract, did not qualify for arbitration under the exceptions. The Court specified that items related to settlement of accounts and property realization post-dissolution could be referred to arbitration, whereas issues like goodwill entitlement after dissolution did not align with the exceptions. Consequently, the High Court's decision to refer all items to arbitration was modified, allowing arbitration only for specific items falling within the exceptions.In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals to a certain extent, permitting arbitration for items falling within the exceptions of Section 69(3) of the Partnership Act while restricting arbitration for issues originating solely from the partnership contract. The judgment clarified the scope of entitlement to arbitration in cases of unregistered partnership firms and provided a detailed analysis of the exceptions under the Partnership Act for enforcing rights arising from such contracts.
TaxTMI 