Skip to main content

Every partner is liable, jointly and severally for all acts of the firm done while he is a partner

Cause Title : Aftab Currim vs Ibrahim Currim & Sons, Interim Application (L) No. 1897 Of 2022, Bombay High Court

Date of Judgment/Order : 8th April, 2022

Corum : N. J. Jamadar, J.

Citied: Jodh Singh Gujral vs. S. Kesar Singh, High Court of Jammu and Kashmir

Background

Defendant no.1 is a registered partnership firm and defendant nos. 2 to 4 are its partner and in-charge of day to day affairs of defendant no.1 – firm. It is the case of the plaintiffs that upon the representation of defendant nos. 2 to 4 that the plaintiffs would get handsome i.e. 24% return on the investment made with the defendants, the plaintiffs had invested a sum of Rs.1 Crore, over a period of time. The amount was to be repaid on demand along with interest. The defendants committed default in repayment. Hence, the suit.

Defendant no. 4 asserted that since, there are eight partners of defendant no. 1 – firm, it is necessary to implead the rest of the five partners as party defendants to this suit, as in the wake of the dissolution of the firm, the outcome of the suit would bind only the party defendants and thereby the applicant – defendant no. 4’s share of liability would increase to 1/3rd from 1/8th. The Defendant no. 4 pleaded the plaintiffs be directed to amend the plaint and implead the rest of the partners of defendant no.1 – firm as defendant nos.5 to 9.

Judgment

The Bombay High Court observed that the Division Bench of the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir in the case of Jodh Singh Gujral vs. S. Kesar Singh has said that Section 43 of the Contract Act, which provides that when two or more persons make joint promise, the promisee may, in the absence of express agreement to the contrary, compel any one or more of such joint promisors to perform the whole of the promise. the Division Bench held that, there was no reason why the principle contained in Section 43 shall not apply to the partners.

Section 25 of the Partnership Act, 1932, provides that every partner is liable, jointly with all the other partners and also severally for all acts of the firm done while he is a partner. It is trite, a firm is not legal entity. A partnership firm is only a collective or compendious name for all the partners. To put it in other words, a partnership firm does not have any existence apart from its partners. Thus, a decree in favour of or against firm in the name of the firm has the same effect like a decree in favour of or against the partners. When the firm incurs a liability, it can be assumed that all the partners have incurred that liability and so the partners remain liable jointly and severally for all the acts of the firm.

If this nature of the liability of the partners of a firm is considered in juxtaposition with the provisions contained in Section 43 of the Contract Act, it becomes explicitly clear that the plaintiffs are not enjoined to implead all the partners of the firm.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

When debt is bona fide disputed and the defence is a substantial one, the court will not wind up the company

In SHITAL FIBERS LTD.  vs  INDIAN ACRYLICS LIMITED, as per the respondent, appellant had made a payment of Rs.61,83,218/­. However, there was an outstanding balance of Rs.8,92,723/­ as on 28.7.2008. Since despite repeated requests, balance amount was not paid, the respondent issued a statutory notice to the appellant. The same was duly responded to. As the payment was not made despite notice being duly served on the appellant, the respondent filed the aforesaid Company Petition seeking winding up of the present appellant for its inability to pay admitted debts. The learned Company Judge vide order dated 28.9.2015 admitted the Company Petition. However, while doing so, the learned Company Judge observed, that since the appellant was an on­going concern, an opportunity should be granted to it to settle the accounts with the respondent by 31.12.2015. Only in case of failure of the settlement, the citation was directed to be published. On appeal, the Division Bench of the High Cou...
Post a Comment
Read more

Abusing in-laws a ground for divorce: SC

Abusing in-laws and not allowing them to reside in the matrimonial home by a woman amounts to cruelty to her spouse, ground enough for grant of divorce, the Supreme Court has ruled while allowing an NRI's plea for legal separation from his wife. A bench of Justices Vikaramajit Sen and A M Sapre said such incidents could not be termed as "wear and tear" of family life as held by Madras High Court which had said that a couple must be prepared to face such situations in matrimonial relationship. The NRI had filed a divorce petition alleging that his wife was abusive to his family members and did not allow his parents and siblings to stay in his house when they visited the US. Referring to an incident, the husband told the court that his wife had once locked him and his sister out of the house and abused them saying they belonged to a 'prostitute family'. She refused to allow her sister-in-law to enter the house and even lodged a police complaint against her hu...
4 comments
Read more