Indian Partnership Act, 1932 · Chapter VII: Registration of Firms
Section 69: Effect of non-registration
(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 [the territories to which this Act extends], or whose places of business in [the said territories] are situated in areas to which, by notification under [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 amendments to this section
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]
Source: India Code (indiacode.gov.in), the consolidated text published by the Legislative Department, Government of India. Text as updated on India Code on 15 October 2026. Words in square brackets [ ] were inserted or substituted by later amending Acts, and *** marks words omitted by an amendment. The amendment footnotes are not reproduced here. Official text on India Code.
Supreme Court judgments citing the section 69
-
M/s Dhanbad Fuels Private Limited v. Union of India & Anr.
Issue arose whether, due to non-compliance with s.12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, a suit should be dismissed u/Ord. VII r.11 CPC, or whether it should be kept in abeyance, directing the parties to first explore…
-
Sunkari Tirumala Rao & Ors. v. Penki Aruna Kumari
Whether a suit for recovery of money filed by partners of an unregistered partnership firm against a partner of the same firm is maintainable.
-
N N Global Mercantile (P) Ltd. v. Indo Unique Flame Ltd. (2023) 7
The issue at hand arose in the context of three statutes; the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, and the Indian Contract Act, 1872. The Stamp Act imposes duty on “instruments”.…
- M/S. Patil Automation Private Limited and Ors. v. Rakheja Engineers Private Limited
- Shiv Developers Through Its Partner Sunilbhai Somabhai Ajmeri v. Aksharay Developers & Ors.
- P. Mohanraj & Ors. v. M/S. Shah Brothers Ispat Pvt. Ltd.
- Bhagwan Das Goel (Dead) Through His Lrs. & Ors. v. Pyare Kishan Agarwal
- Department of Customs v. Sharad Gandhi
- M/S Umesh Goel v. Himachal Pradesh Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd.
- Alka Gupta v. Narender Kumar Gupta
- V Subramaniam v. Rajesh Raghuvandra Rao
- M/S. Arvind Constructions Co. Pvt. Lid. v. M/S Kalinga Mining Corporation and Ors.
- Purushottam and Anr v. Shivraj Fine Art Litho Works and Ors
- Vidyawati Gupta and Ors. v. Bhakti Hari Nay Ak and Ors.
- U.P. State Sugar Corpn. Ltd. v. Jain Construction Co. and Anr.
- Firm Ashok Traders and Anr. Etc. v. Gurumukh Das Saluja and Ors. Etc.
- Kamal Pushp Enterprises v. D.R. Construction Company
- Haldiram Bhujiawala and Anr. v. Anand Kumar Deepak Kumar and Anr
- M/S Raptakos Brett and Co. Ltd. v. Ganesh Property
- Sharad Vasant Kotak and Ors. v. Ramniklal Mohanlal Chawda and Anr.
- Prabhu Shankar Jaiswal v. Sri Sheo Narain Jaiswal
- Brij Kishore Sharma and Anr. v. M/S Ram Singh and Sons and Ors.
- M/S. Krishna Motor Service by Its Partners v. H.B. Vittala Kamath
- Smt. Prem Lata and Anr. v. Mis Ishar Dass Chaman Lal and Ors .
- Esskey Roadways (Firm) v. Anandhakrishnan Bus Service
- Mrs. Kavita Trehan and Anr. v. Balsara Hygiene Products Ltd.