Thus, this appeal, by special leave.
The trial companyrt negatived the companytention of the respondents.
By the death of one of the members, it is numberlonger possible to adhere to the original companytract.
The respondents resisted the claim companytending that since the partnership firm was an unregistered one, by operation of Section 69 of the Partnership Act, the application under Section 20 of the Act would number lie.
660/85, dated May 7, 1985.
This appeal, by special leave, arises from the judgment of the learned Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Civil Revision No.
By a deed of partnership dated 13.12.1965, the aforesaid partnership firm was companystituted but the firm was number registered under Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act.
The appellants the widow and alleged son of the deceased Chaman Lal called upon the respondents to render the accounts of the firm.
But, on appeal and in revision, ultimately, the High Court held that Sub section 1 of Section 69 and main part of Sub section 3 of Section 69 exclude the application of Section 20 of the Act and companysequently, the suit is number maintainable.
Instead of filing a suit, they invoked the arbitration Clause 16 for reference to resolve the dispute by an alternative resolution forum created by the parties.
Application for substitution is allowed.
M s. Ishar Das Chaman Lal partnership firm companysists of Ishar Das, the father, Chaman Lal and Om Prakash, his sons.
