KAMAL PUSHP ENTERPRISES Vs. D R CONSTRUCTION COMPANY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above appeal has been filed against the order of a leanred single Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court dated 13-10-1995 in C.R. No. 561 of 1994, since reported in AIR 1996 MP 139, rejecting the Revision Petition filed by the appellant holding that the provisions of Section 69 of the Partnership Act do not stand in the way of an unregistered firm defending a proceedings against it and it precludes only the initiation of any proceeding by such a firm.

(2.) The Gas Authority of India Ltd., at Vijaypur, entered into a contract with the appellant to execute certain works and the appellant in its turn had entered into a separate contract with the respondent, indisputably an unregistered firm for carrying out the work, the execution of which was undertaken by the appellant under its contract with 'GAIL'. Disputes arose between the appellant and the respondent. Thereupon, the appellant appears to have, invoking Section 8(2) of the Arbitration Act, 1940, served a notice on the respondent seeking for consent for the appointment of an Arbitrator, in terms of the arbitration clause, out of five proposed Arbitrators and the respondent gave its consent for the appointment of a named Advocate, as the Arbitrator. The Arbitrator entered into the reference and the appellant filed its claim and the respondent apart from opposing the claim of the appellant stated its own claim. The Arbitrator passed an Award in favour of the respondent and suo motu filed the award before the trial Court under Section 14(2) of the Arbitration Act. When the Court issued notice to both the appellant and the respondent, it is at this stage the appellant filed various objections, one of which was based upon Section 69 of the Partnership Act, and the trial Court appears to have framed a preliminary issue of law under Order 14, Rule 2, C.P.C. for decision as follows:

(3.) The learned Trial Judge decided the preliminary issue against the appellant. Thereupon, the appellant moved the High Court by way of a revision unsuccessfully and has come before this Court with this appeal.