MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

Partnership Disputes Not Cognizable Under Consumer Protection Act: Supreme Court Sets Aside NCDRC Order

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Supreme Court in the case of Annapurna B. Uppin & Ors. Vs. Malsiddappa & Anr. Ruled that disputes related to partnership investments do not fall under the jurisdiction of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. This judgment clarifies the non-applicability of the Consumer Protection Act to commercial disputes, particularly in the context of partnership firms.

The crux of the dispute involved the investment made by respondent No.1 in a partnership firm and the subsequent denial of repayment. The appellants, heirs of a deceased partner, contested the liability, claiming that the respondent No.1, being a partner in the firm, could not maintain a consumer complaint for a partnership dispute. The case centered around whether a consumer complaint was maintainable for what essentially was a commercial dispute between partners.

Registered Partnership Deed: The Court observed that as per the registered partnership deed dated 27.05.1996, respondent No.1 was a partner, and there was no evidence of the dissolution of this deed. Hence, until the death of the managing partner, the respondent’s status as a partner was deemed to continue.

Nature of Transaction: The investment was made for earning interest, indicating a commercial transaction intended for profit. The Court emphasized that commercial transactions are beyond the scope of the Consumer Protection Act.

Liability of Legal Heirs: There was no evidence that a new partnership deed was executed including the appellants. The Court highlighted that legal heirs do not automatically inherit liabilities of a partnership firm upon a partner’s death.

Jurisdictional Aspect: The Court stated that commercial disputes should be adjudicated in civil courts, not via consumer forums, as they are not equipped to handle such matters.

Alternative Remedy: Responding to the respondent’s argument about alternative remedies, the Court clarified that their ruling does not necessitate transferring pending matters to High Courts but applies prospectively.

Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the orders of the District Forum, the State, and the National Commissions. The complaint was dismissed, affirming that the Consumer Protection Act does not cover partnership disputes, and the complainant was directed to seek an alternative legal remedy.

Date of Decision: 5th April 2024.

Annapurna B. Uppin & Ors. Vs. Malsiddappa & Anr.

Latest Legal News