TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (4) TMI 552
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion (2) of Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 ?" 2. In Sai Accumulator Industries, Sangamner Vs. Sethi Brothers, Aurangabad (2016(5) Mh.LJ 936.), the Single Bench of this Court took a view that the complaint filed by an unregistered firm under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1888 (in short "N.I. Act") is not tenable in law in view of the bar under Section 69(2) of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 (in short "the Act of 1932"). 3. The learned referral Judge expressed a diagonally opposite view and referred the question for consideration of the larger Bench. 4. Heard Shri R.M. Bhangde, learned counsel for the applicant (original complainant) and Shri V.M. Gadkari, learned counsel for the respondent/accused. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ually applies to criminal case. 9. Disagreeing with the ratio in the case of Mr. Amit Desai (supra), the coordinate Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court referred the question for consideration of the larger Bench. Accordingly, the larger Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of A.V. Ramanaiah (supra) held that the Division Bench in the case of Mr. Amit Desai (supra) has not laid down a correct law. The larger Bench after discussing various case laws on the point, came to the conclusion that the bar contained under Section 69 of the Act of 1932 would not get attracted for initiating action by or against an unregistered partnership firm for the offence committed under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. 10. Before adverting to a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nforce its claims against third parties in the civil courts; and any partner who is not registered will be unable to enforce his claims either against third parties or against his fellow partners. One exception to this disability is made - any unregistered partner in any firm, registered or unregistered, may sue for dissolution of the firm. This exception is made on the principle that registration is designed primarily to protect third parties, and the absence of registration need not prevent the disappearance of an unregistered or imperfectly registered firm. Under this scheme a small firm, or a firm created for a single venture, not meeting with difficulty in getting payment, need never register; and even a firm with a large business need....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f money by giving a notice in writing, to the drawer of the cheque, [within thirty days] of the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid; and (c) the drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount of money to the payee or as the case may be, to the holder in due course of the cheque within fifteen days of the receipt of the said notice." 13. The object of introducing Sections 138 to 142 of the N.I. Act vide Amendment Act 66 of 1998 was specifically to enhance the acceptability of cheques in settlement of liabilities by making the drawer liable for penalties in case of bouncing of cheques due to insufficiency of funds in the accounts or for the reason that it exc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....arising out of contract by an unregistered firm, with the object to promote registration of the firms and to exempt the small firms from compulsory registration, the inherent character of enforceability of the 'right' does not get changed and it would still remain as a right enforceable by law. Once the bar is removed, the remedy would be revived. Moreover, even the plaintiff/unregistered firm can withdraw the suit with liberty to file a fresh one after getting the firm registered and section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (in short "the Act of 1963") would be applicable to such proceedings. On the other hand, for filing a complaint under Section 138 of the N. I. Act, it has to be filed within a period of one month from the date on ....