Dismissed

M/S Brand Connect v. M/S Pamm Advertisement and Marketing

Delhi HC28 Aug 2024RFA(COMM)/352/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Commercial regular appellate court order: appellant withdrew its appeal after its suit was dismissed for being an unregistered partnership firm barred by Section 69 Indian Partnership Act, 1932, notwithstanding registration obtained during the suit's pendency. Appeal dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to pursue a fresh remedy; all defences including limitation remain open to the defendant.

What the court decided

AI extract

M/S Brand Connect Vs M/S Pamm Advertisement and… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~48

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- RFA(COMM) 352/2024 & CM APPL. 49277-49278/2024

¶4

M/S BRAND CONNECT .....Appellant Through: Mr Shahrukh Ejaz, Mr Parikshit Goyal, Ms Palak Singh Parihar, Advocates.

¶5

versus

¶6

M/S PAMM ADVERTISEMENT AND MARKETING .....Respondent Through: None.

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL

¶8

O R D E R % 28.08.2024

¶9

[Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)]

¶10

After some arguments, the learned counsel for the appellant seeks to withdraw the appeal with liberty to take recourse to an appropriate remedy, albeit as per law.

¶11

The learned counsel for the appellant says that since the suit filed by the appellant was dismissed based on the preliminary objection, that is, on the date of institution of the suit, it was not a registered partnership firm and therefore, was barred from maintaining the suit action in view of provisions of Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, it ought not to have been foreclosed from agitating the issue raised on merits in a fresh suit action, since during the pendency of the suit action the appellant firm had obtained registration.

¶12

RFA(COMM) 352/2024

¶13

Page 1 of 2

¶14

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 03/07/2025 at 06:33:13

¶15

2.1 The appellant firm, we are told, was registered on 09.01.2023.

¶16

3 The appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.

¶17

In the event the appellant takes recourse to an appropriate remedy to agitate its rights on merits, albeit as per law, obviously, the dismissal of the suit action based on a preliminary objection will not come in the way in having its cause adjudicated.

¶18

4.1. Needless to add, if such a course is embarked upon by the appellant, all defences will be open to the respondent/ defendant, including the defence concerning limitation.

¶19

Pending applications shall stand disposed of.

¶20

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

¶21

AMIT BANSAL, J

¶22

AUGUST 28, 2024 / PB

¶23

Click here to check corrigendum, if any

¶24

RFA(COMM) 352/2024

¶25

Page 2 of 2

¶26

M/S Brand Connect v. M/S Pamm Advertisement and Marketing

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

M/S Brand Connect v. M/S Pamm Advertisement and Marketing

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shriram Epc Ltd. through Authorised Signatory Sh. T.A. Ramachandran Vs M/S Apex Crane Company

M/S Himalayan Ales Private Limited Vs M/S Adaab Hotels Ltd.

Modern Cotton Yarn Spinner Ltd. Vs M/S Mis Sharman Udyog Pvt. Ltd.

Mr Ankit Garg Vs Mr Narender

Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs Meena Tanwar

M/S Nikunj Woods Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Krishna Steel Furniture and Anr.

Vinay Goyal and Anr. Vs Ajay Gupta

M/S Dev Polyplast Private Limited & Anr. Vs M/S R.N. Polymers

Sapna Giya Vs Deepak Giya

Rajrani Bansal Vs Kunj Bihari Bansal

Prachi Joshi Vs Shailender Adhikari

Vinkal Chadha Vs Jasper Colin Research & Anr.

Va Tech Wabag Limited Vs Delhi Jal Board

Raghubir Saran and Sons Vs M/S Shellz India Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.