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

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...
Post a Comment
Read more