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

Amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC explained

Cause Title :  Ganesh Prasad vs Rajeshwar Prasad, SLP (C) NO. 28377 OF 2018, Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : 14/3/2023 Corum : J. B. Pardiwala, J. Citied:  Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons and Others reported in (2009) 10 SCC 84 North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das reported in (2008) 8 SCC 511 P.A. Jayalakshmi v. H. Saradha and Others reported in (2009) 14 SCC 525 B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai and Another reported in (2000) 1 SCC 712 A.K. Gupta and Sons Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corporation reported in AIR 1967 SC 96 Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another, Civil Appeal No. 5909 of 2022 dated 01.09.2022 Firm Sriniwas Ram Kumar v. Mahabir Prasad and Others reported in AIR 1951 SC 177 G. Nagamma and Another v. Siromanamma and Another reported in (1996) 2 SCC 25 Praful Manohar Rele v. Krishnabai Narayan Ghosalkar and Others reported in (2014...
Post a Comment
Read more

Owner of vehicle is not expected to verify the genuineness of the driving license before appointing a driver

Cause Title : Rishi Pal Singh Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 4919 Of 2022, The Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : July 26, 2022 Corum : Hemant Gupta; J., Vikram Nath; J. Background the truck owned by the appellant met with an accident. The owner deposed before the court that before employing the driver, he had taken his driving test and that he was driving the vehicle satisfactorily and  that the driver was employed with him for 3 years before the date of the accident. He produced his driving license. This was reaffirmed by the driver who deposed that the driving license was obtained from the driver and it was issued from Nagaland, but no such license was produced on record. Both the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and the High Court have held that the owner has alleged that the driver had a driving license from Nagaland but the same was not produced and therefore, the Insurance Company is entitled to recover the awarded amount...
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