- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47809-DB COMAP No. 439 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA COMMERCIAL APPEAL NO. 439 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1. M/S BUDHIRAJA ELECTRICALS THROUGH ITS PARTNER SRI MOHINDER LAL BUDHIRAJA AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS HAVING OFFICE AT: 1464/1, GURUDWARA ROAD KOTLA MUBARAKPUR NEW DELHI - 110 003 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SHARAN B T, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. M/S KIRLOSKAR ELECTRIC CO LTD. (COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 2013) HAVING OFFICE AT: 202, 2ND FLOOR, EF3 MALL SECTOR-20A MATHURA ROAD, FARIDABAD-121001 ALSO AT : 19, 2ND MAIN ROAD, PENYA 1ST STAGE, PHASE -I BENGALURU-560058 ALSO AT : 5555, MALLESWARAM WEST BENGALURU 560055. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SATISH K V, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by AMBIKA H B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47809-DB COMAP No. 439 of 2025 THIS COMMERCIAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 13 (1A) OF THE COMMERCIAL COURTS ACT, 2015, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE PRESENT APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 10.06.2025 PASSED BY THE LXXXVIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (COMMERCIAL COURT), IN COM.EX NO.150 OF 2024 & ETC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE) 1. The appellant has filed the present appeal impugning an order dated 10.06.2025, whereby the appellant's petition for execution, being Com.Ex.No.150/2024 was dismissed on the ground that the appellant was not a registered firm and thus, could not maintain a suit in terms of Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 [the Act]. 2. Briefly stated the facts are that the appellant had filed a suit, being CS No.1716/2018, before the District Judge (Commercial - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47809-DB COMAP No. 439 of 2025 Court), South-East District, Saket Court, New Delhi [Commercial Court], seeking recovery of a sum of Rs.14,81,540/- along with pendente lite and future interest. It is the appellant's case that it was awarded a contract by the Executive Engineer (E), Allahabad Central Electrical Division which required installation of 5 MVA 33/11 KV Transformer in the campus of Motilal Nehru National Institute of Technology, Allahabad, UP. The appellant had placed an order on the respondent for supply of transformer (5 MVA Outdoor Type 33/11 KV, 3 Phase, 50 HZ, Delta Star Vector Group Dy 11 oil immersed naturally cooled, copper wound transformer) for a basic price of Rs.24,20,000/-. 3. The appellant claims that the transformer supplied by the respondent malfunctioned and suffered from manufacturing defects. It claims that the respondent was called upon to rectify the same, however, the respondent failed to do so. The respondent took a stand that the transformer could not be repaired beyond seven days of warranty period. The appellant claims that, consequently, it was constrained to get the transformer repaired from a third party, M/s. K.S. Engineering Company, Bhiwadi, at an - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47809-DB COMAP No. 439 of 2025 expenditure of Rs.9,81,540/-. Accordingly, the appellant claimed the said amount along with interest. 4. The said suit was decreed for a sum of Rs.9,81,540/- along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of realization of the amount. Additionally, the plaintiff was also awarded costs as per the rules. 5. The appellant instituted execution proceedings bearing Com.Ex.No.150/2024 for enforcement of the decree. In the said proceedings, the respondent filed an application, being IA No.1, inter alia, contending that the appellant is an unregistered firm and, therefore, could not maintain the suit as instituted by it. According to the respondent the decree was a nullity and therefore could not be executed. 6. The appellant objected to the said application claiming that the application was not maintainable. In effect, the respondent sought to go behind the decree, which was not permissible in execution proceedings. The appellant also claimed that the application filed was baseless and unsustainable. However, the learned Commercial Court allowed the application filed by the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47809-DB COMAP No. 439 of 2025 respondent (judgment debtor) and dismissed the execution petition on the ground that the appellant, being an unregistered firm, could not maintain the suit. 7. It is the appellant's case that the fundamental premise that the appellant is not a registered firm, is erroneous. The appellant has produced a certificate issued by the Registrar of Societies/Firms, District - South East, Government of NCT of Delhi clearly reflecting the appellant's registration number as No.3415/1984 dated 15.12.1984. The said certificate also sets out the constitution of the appellant firm. The appellant has also produced the partnership deed as well as the acknowledgment slip issued by the Registrar of Firms, New Delhi, acknowledging the statement prescribed under Section 58(1) of the Act. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent contended that the said documents could not be looked as they were not placed before the learned Commercial Court. He earnestly contended that the judgment and decree dated 07.03.2020 passed by the learned Commercial Court did not contain any findings to the effect that the appellant is a registered partnership firm. He also - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47809-DB COMAP No. 439 of 2025 submitted that no documents were placed before the learned Commercial Court to establish that the appellant firm is a registered partnership firm and the appellant could not rely on any documents which were not produced before the learned Commercial Court. 9. We find no merit in the contentions advanced on behalf of the respondent. It is relevant to note that the appellant had clearly stated in its plaint filed before the learned Commercial Court that it was a registered partnership firm. Paragraph 1 of the suit filed by the appellant before the Commercial Court (being CS No.1716/2018) is set out below: "The Plaintiff M/s Budhiraja Electricals is a partnership firm duly registered with the Registrar of Firms vide Registration No.3415/84 dated 15.12.1984 and having its registered office at 1464/1, Gurudwara Road, Kotla Mubarakpur, New Delhi - 110 003. The present Suit is being filed and instituted by its Authorized Representative, Mr.Mohinder Lal Budhiraja, Partner, who has been duly authorized to institute the present Plaint, sign and verify the pleadings on behalf of the Plaintiff Firm." 10. The respondent did not traverse the said averment. As noted above, the suit was decreed and, therefore, it is now no longer for - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47809-DB COMAP No. 439 of 2025 the respondent to contest any averments made in the plaint at the stage of execution. 11. It is not open for the Executing Court to re-adjudicate the averments made in the plaint. The Commercial Court had accepted that the suit was maintainable. It was open for respondent to avail its remedies in the event it desired to contest the judgment and decree. However, it is not open for the respondent to contest the averments made in the suit in the execution proceedings. 12. The fact that the judgment and decree does not specifically mention that the appellant is registered under the Act is not a ground for assuming that the decree is a nullity as contented by the learned counsel for the respondent. We also note that although the learned counsel for the respondent contented that the documents produced by the appellant do establish that it was registered under the Act could not be looked into without the leave of the court, he did not dispute the documents. 13. We find no basis for concluding that the appellant is not a registered partnership firm. In any view, as stated above, it is not - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47809-DB COMAP No. 439 of 2025 open for the Executing Court to consider the said dispute in view of the specific averment made by the appellant in its plaint. 14. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. Sd/- (VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE AHB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10