9. One of the partners of a partnership firm had retired from the firm on 10-4-2006. The
firm continued carrying on business and took loan from a bank on 11.9.2006. As the firm
failed to repay the loan, bank filed recovery proceedings wherein the partner who had
retired on 10-2016 was also impleaded a one of the defendants. Plea taken was that his
returement was not disclosed to the bank and impression was given that he continues to be a
partner. The defence of the retired partner was that since he has retired, he could not be made
table and there was no hasts for the bank to presume that he continued to be a partner as he
had not signed any documents when the firm took the loan, whereas such documents were
signed by other partners. Whether the said partner would be liable* Decide in the light of
prwisions of the Indian Partneratup Act, 1932
प एक साझेदारी फर्म के भागीदारों में से एक 104.2006 को फर्म से सेवानिवृत्त हो गया था। फर्म ने
व्यवसाय जारी रखा और 11 9.2006 को बैंक से ऋण लिया। जैसा कि फर्म ऋण चुकाने में विफल रहा,
बैंक ने वसूली की कार्यवाही दायर की जिसमें 10-4-2006 को सेवानिवृत्त हुए साथी को भी प्रतिवादियों में
से एक माना गया। ली गई दलील यह थी कि उनकी सेवानिवृत्ति का खुलासा बैंक में नहीं किया गया था
और यह धारणा दी गई थी कि वह भागीदार बने रहेंगे। सेवानिवृत्त साथी की रक्षा यह थी कि जब वह
सेवानिवृत्त हो गया, तो उसे उत्तरदायी नहीं बनाया जा सकता था और बैंक के पास यह मानने का कोई
आधार नहीं था कि वह भागीदार बना रहे क्योंकि उसने कोई दस्तावेज पर हस्ताक्षर नहीं किए ये जब
फर्म ने ऋण लिया था, जबकि अन्य सहयोगियों द्वारा ऐसे दस्तावेजों पर हस्ताक्षर किए गए थे। क्या उक्त
साधी उत्तरदायी होगा? भारतीय भागीदारी अधिनियम, 1932 के प्रावधानों के आलोक में निर्णय लें।
Answers
Answer:
One of the partners of a partnership firm had retired from the firm on 10-4-2006. The
firm continued carrying on business and took loan from a bank on 11.9.2006. As the firm
failed to repay the loan, bank filed recovery proceedings wherein the partner who had
retired on 10-2016 was also impleaded a one of the defendants. Plea taken was that his
returement was not disclosed to the bank and impression was given that he continues to be a
partner. The defence of the retired partner was that since he has retired, he could not be made
table and there was no hasts for the bank to presume that he continued to be a partner as he
had not signed any documents when the firm took the loan, whereas such documents were
signed by other partners. Whether the said partner would be liable* Decide in the light of
prwisions of the Indian Partneratup Act, 1932
प एक साझेदारी फर्म के भागीदारों में से एक 104.2006 को फर्म से सेवानिवृत्त हो गया था। फर्म ने
व्यवसाय जारी रखा और 11 9.2006 को बैंक से ऋण लिया। जैसा कि फर्म ऋण चुकाने में विफल रहा,
बैंक ने वसूली की कार्यवाही दायर की जिसमें 10-4-2006 को सेवानिवृत्त हुए साथी को भी प्रतिवादियों में
से एक माना गया। ली गई दलील यह थी कि उनकी सेवानिवृत्ति का खुलासा बैंक में नहीं किया गया था
और यह धारणा दी गई थी कि वह भागीदार बने रहेंगे। सेवानिवृत्त साथी की रक्षा यह थी कि जब वह
सेवानिवृत्त हो गया, तो उसे उत्तरदायी नहीं बनाया जा सकता था और बैंक के पास यह मानने का कोई
आधार नहीं था कि वह भागीदार बना रहे क्योंकि उसने कोई दस्तावेज पर हस्ताक्षर नहीं किए ये जब
फर्म ने ऋण लिया था, जबकि अन्य सहयोगियों द्वारा ऐसे दस्तावेजों पर हस्ताक्षर किए गए थे। क्या उक्त
साधी उत्तरदायी होगा? भारतीय भागीदारी अधिनियम, 1932 के प्रावधानों के आलोक में निर्णय लें।
Answer:
Until he or other firm members publicly announce his retirement, a retired partner is nonetheless responsible to a third party for the firm's actions. He won't be held responsible if the third party transacts with the firm without being aware that he is a partner in the firm.
Explanation:
A partner may retire under the terms of Section 32 of the Indian Partnership Act of 1932:
- the approval from each of the other partners.
- according to the partners' explicit agreement
- By notifying the other partners in writing of his desire to retire when a partnership is at-will.
If the departing partner or any partner of the reconstituted firm gives the retiring partner a public notice of his retirement, the retiring partner is not responsible for the firm's actions following his retirement.
An outgoing partner is a partner who departs the partnership firm where the surviving partners carry on the business. According to the Partnership Law, such a partner has specific obligations and privileges. The rights of a departing partner will be the main topic of this article.
Despite some restrictions, Section 36 (1) of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 (the partnership statute) permits a departing partner to operate and publicize a business that is in direct competition with the partnership firm. But it prevents him from:
- Using the joint firm's name
- pretending to be a business partner
- requesting the business of those who were doing business with the firm prior to his leaving as a partner.
In accordance with Section 37 of the Partnership Law, if a partner of the firm passes away or otherwise ceases to be a partner of the firm and the remaining partners continue their involvement in the business without concluding any financial obligations to the departing partner, the departing partner or his estate is entitled to a portion of the profits generated by the company during the period following his departure.
The share may be attributed to the usage of his portion of the company's property or to the interest of 6% per year on the value of his portion of the property.
#SPJ2