| Case ID |
0944bca1-1032-40b5-b636-6f8485aebc43 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
Civil Suit No. 629 and C.M.A. No. 6631 of 2013 |
| Decision Date |
Aug 05, 2013 |
| Hearing Date |
Jun 21, 2013 |
| Decision |
The court ruled that the suit filed by the unregistered partnership firm was barred under Section 69 of the Partnership Act, 1932. The court held that an unregistered partnership lacks the legal capacity to sue, thus rendering the suit inadmissible. The rejection of the plaint was justified as the plaintiff failed to meet the mandatory registration requirements outlined in the Partnership Act. The court further emphasized the necessity of compliance with registration protocols, indicating that non-adherence to these provisions would bar any legal action by the unregistered firm. Consequently, the application was allowed and the interim orders recalled. |
| Summary |
This case highlights the critical importance of registration for partnership firms under the Partnership Act, 1932. The Sindh High Court adjudicated on the validity of a suit filed by an unregistered partnership firm, underscoring that such firms are not recognized as legal entities capable of initiating legal proceedings. The court ruled that the lack of registration is a crippling disability that bars the firm from suing. This ruling serves as a pivotal reference for partnership law, emphasizing the necessity of compliance with registration requirements to enforce contractual rights. Legal practitioners and firms must be vigilant in ensuring proper registration to avoid similar legal hurdles. The case also references significant precedents that reinforce the mandatory nature of Section 69 of the Partnership Act, establishing a clear framework for the legal standing of partnerships in Pakistan. Understanding these legal nuances is essential for ensuring proper legal representation and maintaining the enforceability of contracts within the partnership framework. |
| Court |
Sindh High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
DANYAL ENTERPRISES,
A.G.E. AND SONS (PVT.) LTD.
|
| Judges |
MUHAMMAD ALI MAZHAR, J
|
| Lawyers |
Muhammad Mansoor Mir,
Rasheed A Razvi,
Syed Haider Imam Rizvi,
Nemo
|
| Petitioners |
Messrs DANYAL ENTERPRISES through Co-partner
|
| Respondents |
2 others,
Messrs A.G.E. AND SONS (PVT.) LTD.
|
| Citations |
2015 SLD 2116,
2015 YLR 1507
|
| Other Citations |
PLD 1968 Kar. 222,
PLD 1967 Dacca 190,
2000 SCMR 1172,
PLD 2003 Kar. 314,
PLD 1966 SC 328,
(2007) 15 SC Cases 58,
PLD 1968 Kar. 196,
1996 CLC 1205
|
| Laws Involved |
Specific Relief Act (I of 1877),
Partnership Act (IX of 1932),
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
|
| Sections |
12,
42,
54,
69,
O.VII, R.11
|