Every Supreme Court judgment, headnoted in plain language.
A library you can search by the principle rather than the parties — each judgment carrying an original headnote, paragraph-pinpointed Points of Law and the Court's own PDF. New judgments arrive the day they are reported, and a reminder at the hour you choose puts one in front of you. Five minutes with your morning coffee, or the whole library at eleven at night when a point comes up for tomorrow.
Free account, no card. Core is ₹1 a day if you want more. Your data stays in India.
A real headnote — exactly as a subscriber reads it
2026 INSC 839 · 12 August 2026 · 7 min read
MAGEBA BRIDGE PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED v. M/S. TRADE CENTRE
Coram: K. Vinod Chandran, J. B. Pardiwala
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)
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)
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?
No. A winding up proceeding is a separate and independent remedy from a suit for recovery of money; the initiation of a winding up petition, which may or may not enable recovery, does not impact the limitation applicable to the separate remedy of a suit for recovery.
¶ 13, 14 — tap the paragraph number and land where the Court says it
What you are actually getting
Not a newsletter, and not a citator. A working library of decided law, written so you can use it before court rather than after.
Search that finds the principle, not just the partyFull-text and meaning-based search across the judgment library, plus 46 bare Acts and 6,551 sections. Find the case when all you remember is the proposition. This is the feature our own subscribers use most before they subscribe.
Headnotes written for you, never copiedCatchwords, then crisp held-paragraphs, in plain language and in our own words — never the SCR or AIR wording. The issues, the holding, the principle, without forty pages first.
Points of Law with paragraph pinpointsEvery judgment ships with questions keyed to the exact paragraphs. Tap a ¶ number and you are standing on the passage — which is what you need when you have to quote it, not merely know it.
A library that files itselfSave any judgment into folders and sub-folders by client, subject or forum. Highlights, key passages and the Court's PDF stay one tap away.
A reminder at the hour that suits youSet up to three reminders — before court, after lunch, last thing at night — and LexStreak puts the day's judgment in front of you at exactly those times, on your phone or your laptop. Keeping up with case law fails for want of a prompt far more often than for want of interest.
And a streak, so it sticksRead something each day and the streak grows; miss a day and it resets. It is private and it is the reason most people who mean to keep up actually do. The Bar leaderboard is separate, opt-in, and off unless you turn it on.
Where the headnotes come from
The question an advocate actually has is whether this is safe to rely on. So:
The judgment is the Court's own wordsThe text you read is a reproduction of the judgment as the Supreme Court issued it — not a paraphrase, and not taken from any law report. Every entry carries its neutral citation, the coram and the date, with the Court's own PDF alongside.
The headnotes and Points of Law are ours, and we stand behind themThey are written in plain language rather than lifted from a reporter, and each draft is checked against the source text before it is published. If you find an error in a headnote or an answer, every judgment page has a button to flag it and it will be reviewed at the earliest. Our editorial standards and corrections policy are published in full.
Built and run by a practising advocateLexStreak is made in Tamil Nadu by an advocate in practice, for advocates in practice. Under the DPDPA 2023 your data is processed on consent, stored in Mumbai, and you can download, correct or erase it from your profile at any time.
What it costs
Shown here rather than behind a sales call. Start free; nothing asks for a card until you choose a plan.
Free
₹0forever
3 headnotes and 3 Points of Law a day, the bare Acts library, search and the daily digest.
Core
₹1 a daybilled ₹30/month
12 headnotes and 25 Points of Law a day, 25 saved judgments.
Pro
₹2.3 a daybilled ₹70/month
Unlimited headnotes and Points of Law, full judgment text, PDF downloads, unlimited saves.