SANJAY SINGH Vs. HINDUSTAN UNILEVER LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) G.A. No. 1944 of 2017 has been taken out by the defendant for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the suit is barred by law. G.A. No. 2211 of 2017 is also the defendant's application for an order directing the plaintiffs to give inspection of the Partnership Deed whereby the firm Sanjay & Co. was constituted. I will consider the earlier application first.

(2.) Ms. Bhattacharya, learned counsel for the defendant contended that the defendant had appointed a partnership firm namely, Sanjay & Co., of which the plaintiffs are the partners, as redistribution stockiest of the defendant for the products manufactured by the defendant. The redistribution stockist agreement was terminated by the defendant by its letter dated 30 March, 2010. The plaintiffs have filed the suit claiming, inter alia, that the letter of termination is null and void, for delivery up and cancellation of the said letter and for a decree for Rs. 5,76,09,756/- allegedly due to the plaintiffs from the defendant. The plaintiffs have instituted the suit as partners of the said firm. However, the said firm is unregistered. Hence, the suit is barred under Sec. 69(2) of the Indian Partnership Act , 1932 (in short 'IPA') which bars a suit on behalf of a firm against any third party to enforce a contractual right unless the firm is registered and the persons suing are or have been shown in the Register of Firms as partners in the firm.

(3.) Learned Counsel drew my attention to the averments in the plaint and in particular to paragraphs 1, 8, 9, 12, 14 and 45J of the plaint. I shall revert back to the said paragraphs later. Relying on the said paragraphs, learned Counsel submitted that the plaintiffs are seeking to enforce an alleged right of the unregistered firm under the redistribution stockist agreement entered into by and between the firm and the defendant and since the firm is unregistered, the suit is hit by Sec. 69(2) of the IPA.