Unregistered Partnership Firms: A Legal Trap


Court: Supreme Court of India.

Case Name: SUNKARI TIRUMALA RAO vs. PENKI ARUNA KUMARI.

Citation: 2025 INSC 92 (Reportable)

Background of the Case

The case originated from a dispute over a stone crusher business in Andhra Pradesh. Sunkari Tirumala Rao and others (the petitioners), entered into a partnership agreement with Penki Aruna Kumari (the respondent) to run her existing stone crusher business. The agreement, dated 11.12.2009, stipulated that the petitioners would collectively acquire 75% share of the business in exchange for ₹30,00,000, while the respondent would retain 25%. However, the partnership deed was never registered.

Subsequently, a dispute arose as the business did not commence as expected. The petitioners filed Original Suit No. 80/12 in the Court of the District Judge, Vizianagaram, seeking to recover ₹30,00,000 that was given as investment capital. The respondent raised an objection regarding the maintainability of the suit under Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, since the firm was unregistered.

Trial Court and High Court Decisions

The Trial Court initially held that the suit was maintainable, arguing that since the partnership business had not commenced, Section 69 would not apply. However, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh reversed this decision. The High Court ruled that the suit was not maintainable, relying on Section 69(1) of the Indian Partnership Act. The High Court emphasized that once a partnership agreement exists, it needs to be registered for partners to sue each other. The High Court cited the Lahore High Court judgment in Bishen Narain v. Swaroop Narain, which held that even if business had not commenced, the partnership agreement still had to be registered.

Supreme Court's Judgment

The petitioners then filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) in the Supreme Court of India. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, dismissing the petition. The Court reaffirmed that Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act is mandatory, and it bars suits among partners of an unregistered firm, with the exception of suits for dissolution of the firm and rendition of accounts. The Supreme Court emphasized that the suit was filed for recovery of money stemming from the partnership contract, thus falling under the prohibition of Section 69(1).

The Supreme Court clarified that the present suit did not fall under the exceptions provided by Section 69(3) as it was not a suit for dissolution or accounts. The court noted that it would have been more appropriate for the petitioners to file a suit for dissolution of the partnership firm and rendition of accounts. The Court rejected the argument that Section 69 should not apply because the partnership business had not commenced, stating that the existence of the agreement itself triggers the restrictions.

The Supreme Court reinforced that Section 69 has a "mandatory character" and prevents a suit among the partners of an unregistered partnership firm, enforcing a right arising from the contract unless the suit is for dissolution or rendition of accounts. The Supreme Court relied on two previous decisions to arrive at its conclusion. In Seth Loonkaran Sethiya v. Mr. Ivan E. John, the Court had established that Section 69 is mandatory and any suit by a partner of an unregistered firm to enforce a contract is void. In Mukund Balkrishna Kulkarni v. Kulkarni Powder Metallurgical Industries, the court clarified that Section 69(1) applies when a person is suing "as a partner in a firm" and is trying to enforce a right arising from a contract. The Court noted that a suit for dissolution and accounts would be maintainable despite the non-registration of the firm.

Rationale, Reasoning given by the Judges

The Supreme Court's decision was primarily based on the mandatory nature of Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932. The Court reasoned that Section 69(1) is a clear bar against suits between partners of an unregistered firm seeking to enforce a right arising from a contract. This is to encourage registration and thus accountability and transparency among partnership firms.

The Supreme Court held that the plaintiffs' suit for recovery of money directly stemmed from the unregistered partnership agreement. This action fell squarely within the ambit of Section 69(1), thus making the suit non-maintainable. The Court also rejected the petitioners' argument that Section 69 should not apply since the partnership business had not commenced. It emphasized that the existence of the partnership agreement itself triggers the restrictions outlined in Section 69(1). The Court further noted that the suit did not fall under the exceptions provided in Section 69(3) because it was not a suit for dissolution or rendition of accounts.

The Supreme Court cited precedents such as Seth Loonkaran Sethiya v. Mr. Ivan E. John and Mukund Balkrishna Kulkarni v. Kulkarni Powder Metallurgical Industries to reinforce its stance on the mandatory nature of Section 69 and the conditions under which it applies. It reiterated that if a suit is filed by a person "suing as a partner" and aims to enforce a right under a contract, Section 69(1) applies, thus barring the suit. The Court also highlighted the exceptions under Section 69(3) that allow partners to file suits for dissolution and accounts, irrespective of the firm's registration status.

Excerpt, Important quotes from the decision

  • “It is evident from a reading of sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 69 that it assumes a mandatory character.”
  • “Once there is an agreement of partnership, unless it is registered, no suit can be maintained by the partners for enforcing any right accruing from such agreement.”
  • “a suit by a plaintiff in respect of a right vested in him or acquired by him under a contract which he entered into as a partner of an unregistered firm…void.”
  • “It would have instead been appropriate for the petitioner to have preferred a suit for dissolution of the partnership firm and rendition of accounts…”

Points to Remember

  • Registration is Mandatory: Registration of a partnership firm is essential to maintain suits for enforcing contractual rights. Section 69 is of mandatory character.
  • Section 69(1) Bar: Section 69(1) of the Indian Partnership Act bars suits among partners of an unregistered firm for enforcement of contractual rights.
  • Exceptions under Section 69(3): There are exceptions allowing suits for dissolution of a firm and rendition of accounts even if the firm is unregistered.
  • Suit for Recovery Barred: A suit for recovery of money among partners of an unregistered firm is generally not maintainable.
  • Agreement triggers the restrictions: The existence of a partnership agreement, rather than the commencement of business, triggers the application of Section 69.
  • Appropriate Remedy: Partners of an unregistered firm in disputes should seek dissolution and accounts rather than direct recovery suits.
  • Two key factors necessary to invoke Section 69(1): A person being sued “as a partner” and “enforcing a right arising from a contract” are the two key factors necessary to invoke Section 69(1).
  • Section 69(2) applies to third parties: Section 69(2) applies to the institution of a suit by an unregistered firm against a third party.
  • Registration promotes transparency: Section 69 aims to encourage firms to register, thereby promoting transparency and accountability.

Popular posts from this blog

SARFAESI Act and Civil Court Jurisdiction: A Landmark Judgment

Court: Supreme Court of India Case Name: Central Bank Of India vs. Smt. Prabha Jain Citation: 2025 INSC 95  (Reportable) Background of the Case The Supreme Court of India addressed a series of civil appeals concerning the interplay between the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) and the jurisdiction of civil courts. The central issue was whether civil courts can adjudicate on the validity of sale deeds and mortgage deeds when the properties are under SARFAESI Act proceedings. This was particularly in the context where a third party, not the borrower, claimed an independent ownership right over the secured asset. The lead case involved Smt. Prabha Jain, who sought to reclaim her share of family land, arguing that her brother-in-law illegally sold the land which was later mortgaged to the Central Bank of India. The bank argued that the civil court's jurisdiction was barred by Section 34 of the SARFAE...
Read more

Navigating Partnership Disputes in Arbitration: Bombay High Court Upholds Minimal Judicial Intervention, Tasking Arbitral Tribunal to Determine Privity Amidst Partner Succession and a Substitute Presiding Arbitrator Appointment

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay recently addressed a contentious arbitration petition,  2025:BHC-AS:11467 , arising from a dispute concerning the exit of the Petitioner, Darshan Mahendra Nibjya, from a partnership firm where Respondent No. 2, Jayantilal Tarachand Oswal & Ors., subsequently became a partner.  The core legal question revolved around the maintainability of the arbitration against Respondent No. 2, who contended that no arbitration agreement existed between him and the Petitioner. This issue came before the Court in the context of an application for the appointment of a substitute presiding arbitrator, necessitated by the resignation of the previously appointed arbitrator following allegations from Respondent No. 2. The genesis of the matter lies in the inability of the arbitrators nominated by the Petitioner and Respondent No. 1 to agree on a presiding arbitrator, leading to the initial appointment by a Learned Single Judge, an order upheld by the Sup...
Read more

Upholding Governmental Prerogative to Rectify Flawed Recruitment: Supreme Court Settles Assam Forest Constable Appointment Saga

Court: Supreme Court of India. Case Name: STATE OF ASSAM vs. ARABINDA RABHA. Citation: 2025 INSC 334 (Reportable) Background of the Disputed Recruitment The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest & Head of Forest Force, Assam, initiated recruitment for 104 Constable posts in 2014. The selection process involved a physical endurance test followed by interviews, notably without a written examination. A select list was prepared and submitted for government approval. Intervention and Cancellation by the Successor Government A new political regime assumed power in Assam in May 2016. The incumbent PCCF subsequently submitted a note highlighting serious anomalies in the selection process, including disproportionate district-wise representation and reservation policy violations. Based on this note, the Government cancelled the select list in July 2016 without any further inquiry. A fresh advertisement for 132 constable posts was issued in April 2017. High Court's Scrutiny a...
Read more