Maintainability of arbitration relief by an unregistered partnership required fresh consideration under binding precedent, with remand ordered.

The Supreme Court held that where the High Court decides a writ petition without considering the binding precedent governing maintainability, the proper course is to set aside the order and remit the matter for fresh adjudication. The dispute concerned maintainability of an application under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 in the setting of an unregistered partnership and the bar under Section 69(3) of the Partnership Act. Because the relevant precedent had not been applied, the Court declined to decide the merits for the first time in appeal and sent the matter back for reconsideration in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court's order dismissing the writ petition should be set aside and the matter remanded for fresh decision in the light of the binding precedent governing maintainability.

Analysis: The appeal arose from an order upholding the maintainability of an application under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 in the context of an unregistered partnership and the bar under Section 69(3) of the Partnership Act. The Court found that the High Court had not decided the writ petition by considering the relevant decision laying down the governing law. As the issue had to be examined afresh with reference to that precedent, it was inappropriate for the Court to decide the merits for the first time in appeal.

Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the matter was remanded to the High Court for fresh decision on merits.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, but the substantive controversy was left for reconsideration by the High Court in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the lower court has failed to decide the matter in the light of a binding precedent, the proper course is to set aside the order and remit the case for fresh adjudication rather than decide the issue for the first time in appeal.

---