Indian Partnership Act - Doctrine of Holding Out , Partnership by holding out

Introduction

 Generally speaking, partners are individually liable for any liability of a firm. Is it possible that third person(who is not partner of course) can be liable for liability of firm. 

Answer is YES.

Section 28 have provision related to this peculiar arrangement.

Section 28

 It states that if a person represents himself that he is partner though he is not, and then third party acts on this representation then the person who made representation will be liable.

Take for example our famous "Chocolate Wale" trading firm in chocolate consisting of Ramesh and Suresh. If Mahesh, in some or the other way tells bank that he is also partner, and based on this Bank lends money to partnership firm, in case of default, Bank can file a suite against Mahesh as a partner.

Clause 2 deals with the death of partner. It states that when partner dies, and firm continues the business, then his legal representatives or heir will not be liable for any acts of a firm.

We will see the provision in details in essential ingredients.

Essential ingredients

Representation

There are two ways a representation could be made. Meaning saying "I am partner"

First, if person himself makes such representation to third party, like in above example Mahesh says bank that he is partner with Ramesh and Suresh.

Second, knowingly permitting someone to do such representation. For example, Mahesh's girlfriend Mahima tells a bank that Mahesh is partner with Ramesh and Suresh. Though Mahesh come to know about representation made by his girlfriend, but he didn't oppose such representation.

However mere careless by any person will not make him liable. Case in point in this regard is Tower Cabinet Co V Ingramm, in this there was partnership between two person say A and B. Partnership was dissolved and A continued the business. However old stationary material was used where name of both partners were printed. Third party thought that B is also partner and did some act. It brought suite against B also. It was stated that mere negligence cannot be a reason for partnership by holding out.

Acting on faith of representation and giving credit

Third party must act on representation given by a person and also grant credit to a firm.
Also important thing is act must be done by a entity to whom representation is made. For example Mahesh says he is partner to State Bank of India, and Bank of Baroda gives a loan to firm and then bring a suite against Mahesh for being partner by holding out, such suit will not stand


Thanks
 

Comments

  1. UnknownMay 29, 2020 at 12:31 AM

    can suit be also bought against chocolate wala i.e ramesh and suresh if yes? can chocolate wala say he was not aware about the fact about credit

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AmitMay 29, 2020 at 1:39 AM

      It Depends..!!

      If Partnership Firms knows that somebody else is representing them as partner and they remain silent, then yes suit can be bought against "Chocolate Wala" in above example. (Doctrine of estoppel comes into operation).

      However if Partnership Firm is totally unaware of such third person, then No suit cannot be bought against them.

      Delete

Post a Comment

Followers

Popular posts from this blog

Privileges and Immunities to Administration in Suits

Introduction You know government can enter into contracts. Government can start some business. It mean government can sue other people, or you can sue the government. Before you initiate a legal proceedings against government, or even after legal proceedings are initiated, there are some relaxations to government.( OK, we will use Government/Administration as per our discretion interchangeably in this post, but they will mean the same ). So, it might happen that to prove something you may need a document or evidence, but government may be given exemption to produce evidence in that regard. Let's take one example.  General law is that burden of proof is on prosecution. Meaning, the one who accuses other  needs to prove the crime/offence by other. But when government accuses you of Sedition, you have to prove your innocence, burden of proof is on YOU. This is scary, as many times government in power just accuses people of sedition who opposes their ideas/policies, and put oppone...
Read more

Legal History-Administration of Justice in Bombay (1668-1726)

Image
Story About Bombay In 1534, Portuguese acquired Bombay from Local Hindu Raja. Then Bombay was given to King Charles II as dowry in his sister's marriage to in 1661. In 1668 Bombay was given to rent to East India Company for a rent of 10  £ . By today's exchange it would be around 100 Rs. So  yes, Bombay was given on rent to East India Company for the price of 10 Vada-Pav. Administration of Bombay was subordinate to Surat back then. After renting it, company issued a charter in 1668 granting company some rights to make laws to deal with Bombay. Like Administration in Madras, development of Earlier administration could be studied in 3 stages. First Stage: 1670-1683 (Aungier Eara) During this period Bombay was subordinated to Surat. The Governor of Surat was ex-officio Governor of Bombay, though Bombay had Deputy Governor and Council. Gerald Aungier brought some changes in Administration of justice. Two plans, i.e plan of 1670 and plan of 1672 made progress in so...
Read more

Overview of Appeal in CrPC

Image
Introduction Here is the simplistic hierarchy of the Courts. (JMFC stands for Judicial Magistrate of First Class) Not so serious cases are tackled by Lower courts. Serious cases are tackled by Sessions court.  We humans are not Gods. Courts are presided by humans and its possible that they can make a mistake. They should be remedy to people when courts commits  mistake. One of such remedy is Appeals. Remember this one, you don't have right of Appeal in all the cases even if you feel Court had committed some mistake. Criminal Procedure Code gives a right to appeal in specific circumstance.  CrPC provides circumstance when you CANNOT appeal. Apart from CrPC, constitution also have certain provisions related to Appeal. Specific laws like NIA Act, UAPA Act etc have provided separate procedure of Appeal.   In this post we will cover below things When you CANNOT appeal ? Who can appeal and for What purpose ? Appeals to Sessions Court Appeals to High Court Appeals to Suprem...
Read more