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

Michigan House Approves 'Right-to-Work' Bill

Amid raucous protests, the Republican-led Michigan House approved a contentious right-to-work bill on  Dec 11 limiting unions' strength in the state where the (Union for American Auto Workers)  UAW was born. The chamber passed a measure dealing with public-sector workers 58-51 as protesters shouted "shame on you" from the gallery and huge crowds of union backers massed in the state Capitol halls and on the grounds. Backers said a right-to-work law would bring more jobs to Michigan and give workers freedom. Critics said it would drive down wages and benefits. The right-to-work movement has been growing in the country since Wisconsin fought a similar battle with unions over two years ago. Michigan would become the 24th state to enact right-to-work provisions, and passage of the legislation would deal a stunning blow to the power of organized labor in the United States. Wisconsin Republicans in 2011 passed laws severely restricting the power of public s...
Post a Comment
Read more

Power to re-assess by AO and disclosure of material facts

In AVTEC Limited v. DCIT, the division of the Delhi High Court held that AO is bound to look at the litigation history of the assessee and cannot expect the assessee to inform him.  In the instant case, the Petitioner, engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling of automobiles, power trains and power shift transmissions along with their components, approached the High Court challenging the re-assessment order passed against them. For the year 2006-07, the Petitioner entered into a Business Transfer Agreement with Hindustan Motors Ltd, as per which, the Petitioner took over the business from HML.  While filing income tax return for the said year, the petitioner claimed the expenses incurred in respect of professional and legal charges for the purpose of taking over of the business from HML as capital expenses and claimed depreciation. Article referred: http://www.taxscan.in/assessing-officer-bound-look-litigation-history-assessee-delhi-hc-read-order/8087/
Post a Comment
Read more

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