How Assets and Liabilities can be settled Upon Dissolution of Partnership?

Section 263 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, provides that after dissolution of partnership, the rights and obligations of the partners continue in all things necessary for winding-up the business of the partnership. In the normal course there must be a general sale and winding up followed by a distribution of the surplus.[1] In all… Read More How Assets and Liabilities can be settled Upon Dissolution of Partnership?

Dissolution of Partnership on Death of a Partner

When a partner dies, subject to any contract to the contrary, partnership is dissolved. Section 42 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 (“Act”) provides for dissolution of partnership on occurrence of certain contingencies which includes ‘death of the partner’ as one of those contingencies. Plain reading of the Section 42 would show that, subject to… Read More Dissolution of Partnership on Death of a Partner

Is Partnership a Juristic Person having its own Independent Status?

The related question is whether a partnership firm is such an entity in law that notwithstanding the death of a partner, that entity does not undergo a change and whether the legal entity, continues notwithstanding the death of one of the partners. Under the Indian Partnership Act a partnership has not been given any legal… Read More Is Partnership a Juristic Person having its own Independent Status?

Bhogilal Laherchand v Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay

Bhogilal Laherchand v Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay AIR 1956 Bom 411 (minor, accounts when to calculate?) Facts The assessee (Bhogilal, B) who had started a partnership firm admitted his minor son A to the benefits of the partnership. The minor attained majority on August 22, 1950, and he elected to remain a partner of… Read More Bhogilal Laherchand v Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay

Addanki Narayanappa & Anr. v. Bhaskara Krishtappa & Ors.

Addanki Narayanappa & Anr. v. Bhaskara Krishtappa & Ors. 1966 SCR (3) 400 (movable-immovable property) Facts The members of two Joint Hindu families (Appellants and Respondents) entered into partnership for carrying on business. The members of one family filed a suit in 1949 for dissolution of the partnership and the taking of accounts. The members… Read More Addanki Narayanappa & Anr. v. Bhaskara Krishtappa & Ors.

Karumuthu Thiagarajan Chettiar and Anr. v. E.M. Muthappa Chettiar

Karumuthu Thiagarajan Chettiar and Anr. v. E.M. Muthappa Chettiar 1961 SCR (3) 998 [partnership at will, section 7] Facts Muthappa Chettiar (MC)[1] and K. Thiagarajan Chettiar (TC)[2] entered into a written partnership agreement for the managing agency business of the two mills (Rajendra & Saroja) wherein they fixed turns to manage the mills and the… Read More Karumuthu Thiagarajan Chettiar and Anr. v. E.M. Muthappa Chettiar

Champaran Cane Concern v State of Bihar and Anr.

Champaran Cane Concern v State of Bihar and Anr. 1964 SCR (2) 921 (co-ownership vis-a-vis partnership ) Facts The appellants, living in far off place of U.P appointed a common manager for facility of cultivation and management of land in Champaran (Bihar).The concern was assessed as a partnership firm for all the three years, though… Read More Champaran Cane Concern v State of Bihar and Anr.

Birdichand Sukhraj Marwadi v. Harakchand Jagraj Marwadi

Birdichand Sukhraj Marwadi v. Harakchand Jagraj Marwadi Facts The plaintiff purchased cartloads of cotton from a third party and the defendant held half the share in the profit or the loss arising out of the said transaction. Since the price began to fall, the defendant told the plaintiff’s to sell it. The plaintiff did so… Read More Birdichand Sukhraj Marwadi v. Harakchand Jagraj Marwadi

Shivagouda Ravji Patil v. Chandrakant Neelkanth Sedalge

Shivagouda Ravji Patil v. Chandrakant Neelkanth Sedalge 1964 SCR (8) 233 [minor turns major, Section 30(5) ] Facts A partnership firm was being run wherein one of the partners was a minor (respondent 1) and was admitted to the benefits of the partnership. The partnership was dissolved and subsequently the minor partner became a major. However, he… Read More Shivagouda Ravji Patil v. Chandrakant Neelkanth Sedalge

Commissioner of Income Tax, Madhya Pradesh v. Dewas Cine Corporation

Commissioner of Income Tax, Madhya Pradesh v. Dewas Cine Corporation 1968 SCR (2) 173 [distribution of assets-sale or not?, section 46] Facts A partnership firm dealing with cinematographic films got dissolved. Individual Cinematograph theatres were treated as the assets of the partnership. Partners of the firm handed over this asset along with its depreciation cost… Read More Commissioner of Income Tax, Madhya Pradesh v. Dewas Cine Corporation