Topic
An unregistered firm in occupation as a licensee on 1 Feb 1973 can claim statutory tenancy under Section 15-A of the Bombay Rent Control Act, despite non-registration under the Partnership Act. It shields such licences from losing rent-control protection.
A Registrar’s Exhibit-8 memorandum conclusively establishes a firm’s registration, and a money-recovery claim filed after the limitation period is barred under Section 69(2) of the Indian Partnership Act and the Limitation Act, affecting partners seeking recovery.
The Himachal Pradesh High Court affirmed that an oral partnership is legally enforceable without a written deed, and tenancy rights survive the destruction of the leased premises. Possession is established through rent receipts, sales tax records, and certified public documents, defeating claims of surrender even in the absence of formal title.
Madhya Pradesh High Court rules that an arbitration clause in a mere agreement to form a partnership is non-arbitrable under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act, as no enforceable partnership exists. The decision underscores that arbitrability hinges on the actual formation of a partnership, not just a preliminary agreement.
Bombay High Court affirms that under Section 37 of the Indian Partnership Act, heirs of a deceased partner retain entitlement to post-death profits if the partnership deed's buyout clause is not duly executed. The ruling reinforces that contractual obligations must be strictly complied with to extinguish profit-sharing rights of legal heirs.
Unregistered firms can maintain suits under Section 69(1) of the Indian Partnership Act if registered by the filing date, regardless of registration status during the transaction. The Punjab & Haryana HC upheld a ₹3.89 lakh decree, clarifying that the critical date is filing, not the transaction period, easing compliance for businesses.