Supreme Court of India· 12 August 2026

Under Section 69(2) of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, can a suit by an unregistered firm be maintained where a memorandum issued by the Registrar of Firms acknowledging receipt and registration of documents, along with a certified copy of Form-VIII, is produced to prove registration?

MAGEBA BRIDGE PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED v. M/S. TRADE CENTRE

2026 INSC 839 · Civil Appeal No.10658 of 2026
Coram: K. Vinod Chandran; J. B. Pardiwala

🔖 Save this judgment 🔔 Follow s.69(2) Indian Partnership Act, …📬 Get today's judgments

View the original judgment PDFFree to read. To download it — or the LexStreak typeset copy with the headnote and Points of Law — create an account; downloads are part of the Pro plan.

Answer

Yes. Such a memorandum, together with the certified copy of Form-VIII produced under Order XLI Rule 27(1) reiterating the registration number and date, sufficiently proves the registration of the firm, and the suit is not hit by Section 69(2) of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932.

Headnote

Indian Partnership Act, 1932 — s.69(2) — Limitation Act, 1963 — s.14 — Registration of firm — Acknowledgment of debt — Running account — Winding up proceedings — Indian Partnership Act, 1932 — s.69(2) — Registration of firm — Form-VIII — Order XLI Rule 27(1) — Held: Exhibit-8, a memorandum issued by the Registrar of Firms acknowledging receipt of documents and intimating that they were filed, recorded and registered, together with a certified copy of Form-VIII produced under Order XLI Rule 27(1), sufficiently proved registration of the plaintiff-firm, and the suit was not hit by Section 69(2) of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932. (¶4, 5, 6) Limitation Act, 1963 — s.14 — Winding up — Separate and independent remedy — Acknowledgment of debt — Running account — Held further: Time spent prosecuting a winding up petition cannot be excluded under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for a suit for recovery of money, since a winding up proceeding is a separate and independent remedy from a suit for recovery; and since the payment recorded admitted bills, not acknowledgment of debt on a running account, the claim was barred by limitation. (¶14, 15, 16, 17) Indian Partnership Act, 1932 — Limitation Act, 1963 — Appeal allowed — Held further: The order of the High Court was reversed to the extent of granting the relief of recovery, since the claim for recovery is hit by limitation, despite the finding that the suit was properly instituted by a partnership firm whose registration was proved in accordance with law; the appeal was allowed. (¶18, 19)

In the Court's own words

Paragraph 4On a perusal of the impugned judgment, we are inclined to hold that there was sufficient evidence to find the registration of the respondent-firm. Exhibit-8 also produced herein, is a memorandum issued by the Registrar of Firms, West Bengal, acknowledging receipt of documents and it is also an intimation that the documents have been filed/recorded/registered pursuant to the Indian Partnership Act, 1932. It also indicates the Registration No.L73931 allotted to the respondent-firm, clearly showing that the firm was registered at least on 14.05.2010; the date revealed from Exhibit-8. The court also went on to look at the document produced under Order XLI Rule 27(1) and found it to be a certified copy of Form-VIII of the Registrar of Firms, duly certified by the Registrar of Firms, West Bengal, whereby it was reiterated that the Registration number of plaintiff-firm is L73931, as it appears from Exhibit-8 and date of registration 14.05.2010 is also in consonance.

Paragraph 5In addition to the finding that Exhibit-8 by itself proved the registration, it was also held that the application to produce additional document has to be allowed since it would further the cause of justice and enable the court to pronounce judgment especially since the document produced corroborates Exhibit P8.

Acts & Sections

s.69(2) Indian Partnership Act, 1932s.14 Limitation Act, 1963s.5 Limitation Act, 1963Order XLI Rule 27(1) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of MAGEBA BRIDGE PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED v. M/S. TRADE CENTRE — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Create my free account

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India

Open the full judgment →

Also decided in this judgment

Under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, can the time spent prosecuting a winding up petition before the Company Court be excluded in computing the limitation period for a subsequent suit for recovery of money based on the same transactions?Where a defendant, in response to a demand notice, admits and pays specific invoices that are undisputed while contesting the rest, does that payment amount to an acknowledgment of debt on a running account so as to extend limitation for the entire claim?Does the principle in Kalpraj Dharamshi, permitting exclusion of time under Sections 5 and 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for a delayed appeal bona fide pursued before a wrong forum, extend to permit exclusion of time spent in an independent winding up proceeding for the purpose of a separate suit for recovery of money?

Plain-language answer prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk — verify against the judgment. Source: Supreme Court of India. Corrections