https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=281156 Registration of the plaintiff partnership firm was proved through Form-A acknowledgement and original records treated as official public documents, so the suit was not barred under section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act. Territorial jurisdiction was sustained because the transaction and at least part of the cause of action arose at Hanagal under sections 16 and 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Interest at 18% per annum in the commercial transaction was also upheld under section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. On these grounds, the challenge failed and the decree in favour of the respondent was sustained. en-us Tue, 29 Jan 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 05 Jun 2019 17:50:39 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=281156 Registration of the plaintiff partnership firm was proved through Form-A acknowledgement and original records treated as official public documents, so the suit was not barred under section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act. Territorial jurisdiction was sustained because the transaction and at least part of the cause of action arose at Hanagal under sections 16 and 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Interest at 18% per annum in the commercial transaction was also upheld under section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. On these grounds, the challenge failed and the decree in favour of the respondent was sustained. Case-Laws Companies Law Tue, 29 Jan 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=281156