Effect of non-registration
Commencement. 1932-10-01 (except section 69) 1933-10-01
Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 deals with effect of non-registration. No suit to enforce a right arising from a contract or conferred by this Act shall be institutes in any Court by or on behalf of any person suing as a partner in a firm against the firm or any person alleged to be or to have been a partner in the firm unless the firm is registered and the person suin The Act was enacted on 08 Apr 1932.
(1) No suit to enforce a right arising from a contract or conferred by this Act shall be institutes in any Court by or on behalf of any person suing as a partner in a firm against the firm or any person alleged to be or to have been a partner in the firm unless the firm is registered and the person suing is or has been shown in the Register of Firms as a partner in the firm.
(2) No suit to enforce a tight arising from a contract shall be instituted in any Court by or on behalf of a firm against any third party 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) The provisions of sub-sections (1) and (2) shall apply also to a claim of set-off or other proceeding to enforce a right arising from a contract, but shall not affect--
(a) the enforcement of any right to sue for the dissolution of a firm or for accounts of a dissolved firm, or a ay right or power to realise the property of a dissolved firm, or
(b) the powers of an official assignee, receiver or Court under the Presidency-towns Insolvency Act, 1909 (2 of 1909), or the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920 (5 of 1920), to realise the property of an insolvent partner.
(4) This section shall not apply--
(a) to firms or to partners in firms which have no place of business in 1[the territories to which this Act extends], or whose places of business in 2[the said territories] are situated in areas to which, by notification under 3[section 56], this Chapter does not apply, or
(b) to any suit or claim of set-off not exceeding one hundred rupees in value which, in the Presidency-towns, is not of a kind specified in section 19 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882 (15 of 1882), or, outside the Presidency-towns, is not of a kind specified in the Second Schedule to the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 (9 of 1887), or to any proceeding in execution or other proceeding incidental to or arising from any such suit or claim.
STATE AMENDMENT
Maharashtra
Substitution of section 69A of IX of 1932.--For section 69A of the principal Act, the following section shall be substituted, namely:--
"69A. Charges for delay in compliance of section 60, 61, 62 or 63.--If any statement, intimation or notice under section 60, 61, 62 or as the case may be, 63, in respect of any registered firm is not sent or given to the Registrar, within the period specified in that section, the Registrar may, make suitable amendments in the records relating to the firm, upon payment of charges for delay in sending or giving the same, at the rate of rupees two thousand per year or part thereof in respect of the period between the date of expiry of the period specified in that section and the date of making the payment.".
[Vide Maharashtra Act 16 of 2018, s. 3]
Section 69, The Indian Partnership Act, 1932 (Act 9 of 1932).
Cross-references
Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.
This section refers to
- s. 56 Power to exempt from application of this Chapter
- s. 60 Recording of alterations in firm name and principal place of business
- s. 61 Noting of closing and opening of branches
- s. 62 Noting of changes in names and addresses of partners
- s. 63 Recording of changes in and dissolution of a firm
- Presidency Small Cause Courts Act s. 19 Suits in which Court has no jurisdiction
Referred to by 1
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
V. Subramaniam v. Rajesh Raghuvandra Rao
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Judgment of Main Case order-7.pdf 2009-03-20. CA 7438/2000. DATE-CHECK flagged High Court 2000-09-27 / trial 1999-08-16 from the facts; the document is the SC judgment striking Maharashtra Partnership Act 69(2A) as ultra vires Arts. 14, 19(1)(g) and 300A. Central s.69 remains; a State cannot add a blanket ban on unregistered-firm property suits. Do not map CPC 113 (trial-court reference only).
On this section: Central s.69 is the measure of the non-registration disability. Maharashtra 69(2A), which banned unregistered-firm property suits, was struck as ultra vires Arts. 14, 19(1)(g) and 300A (V. Subramaniam).
-
Haldiram Bhujiawala v. Anand Kumar Deepak Kumar
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Judgment of Main Case order-1.pdf 2000-02-28 DATE VERIFIED. CA 1786/2000. Partnership Act 69(2) bars a suit by an unregistered firm only if the suit is to enforce a right arising from a contract. A passing-off / trade-mark action is a tort and statutory right, not a contract suit, so non-registration does not oust the court. Map partnership-act 69.
On this section: s.69(2) bars a suit by an unregistered firm only to enforce a right arising from a contract. A passing-off / trade-mark action is a tort and statutory right, so non-registration is not a bar (Haldiram).
-
Sharad Vasant Kotak vs Ramniklal Mohanlal Chawda
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a registered partnership firm undergoes reconstitution due to the death of a partner and the induction of a replacement partner, the reconstitution does not dissolve the original registered firm and does not require fresh registration. The original registration continues to be valid. A suit for dissolution and accounts of the firm can be maintained if (1) the firm was originally registered, and (2) the person suing is shown in the Register of Firms as a partner in that registered firm. Non-compliance with the requirement to notify the Registrar of changes in firm constitution (Sections 61, 62, 63) attracts penalties under Section 69A but does not invalidate the registration or bar the maintainability of suits under Section 69(2A). For purposes of Section 69(2A), the partnership firm means the firm as found in the Certificate of Registration, and partners are those found in the Register of Firms.
On this section: Effect of non-registration - Court examined Section 69(1), 69(2), and 69(3) to understand registration requirements for enforcing partnership rights
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Questions about Section 69
What have the courts held on Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act?
V. Subramaniam v. Rajesh Raghuvandra Rao (20 Mar 2009) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Central s.69 is the measure of the non-registration disability. Maharashtra 69(2A), which banned unregistered-firm property suits, was struck as ultra vires Arts. 14, 19(1)(g) and 300A (V. Subramaniam). Another 2 judgments on this section are set out below, all of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 1997 to 2009.
How do I find court cases under Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: Partnership Act 69, section 69 Partnership Act, section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act. People searching for it also type indian partnership act section 69 2 and indian partnership act 1932 section 69. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 3 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with V. Subramaniam v. Rajesh Raghuvandra Rao (20 Mar 2009).
What should I read with Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act, and has it changed?
Its own text turns on section 56 (Power to exempt from application of this Chapter), section 60 (Recording of alterations in firm name and principal place of business), section 61 (Noting of closing and opening of branches), section 62 (Noting of changes in names and addresses of partners), and on 2 further provisions, so none of them can safely be read on its own. 1 other provision in this corpus refers back to it.
When was Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act enacted?
Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act, cited as Partnership Act 69, was enacted on 08 Apr 1932 as Act 9 of 1932. It is in force as at the date shown on this page.
Other sections of this Act
- 58. Application for registration591 words
- 30. Minors admitted to the benefits of partnership552 words
- 44. Dissolution by the Court290 words
- 71. Power to make rules259 words
- 37. Right of outgoing partner in certain cases to share subsequent profits227 words
- 6. Mode of determining existence of partnership210 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Text as in force on 14 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.