Supreme Court closes loophole, puts business partners on notice
In a decision made in the Cheque-BoENCE case, the Supreme Court decided that on July 14, the partnership company itself was not officially called a defendant, even if such partners could be directly prosecuted.
Aside from a previous Supreme Court of Madras, the APEX Court emphasized the basic legal distinction between a partnership company and a company, and provided partners to carry partners directly, partners and various responsibilities for the actions of a partnership company other than the managers of a company.
The Supreme Court is the same in the eyes of a partnership company and its partners, and therefore, a notification to such partners is an effective notification to the company.
Legal experts, the Supreme Court’s decision will have a comprehensive impact on the commercial case, because people responsible for organizing DUD controls from the partnership accounts to ensure that they can be calculated more quickly, strengthening the position of the creditors, he said.
The essence of the issue was based on the interpretation of the 141st part of the negotiating Vehicles Law. It deals with the crimes of companies and also summarizes the responsibility of the partners when a company committed a crime about dishonest checks under the 138th episode.
“Previously, many courts, many courts, a partnership firm against the partnership partnership partnership partnerships before the 138th part of the Law on the 138th part of a complaint, the company itself was not called a defendant and the opinion of the legal notification of the opinion of the opinion. He said. “This usually allowed the defendant partners to escape from prosecution for technical reasons.”
The Supreme Court’s decision eliminated this defense.
“The Court, according to the laws of India, thought that there is no legal entity separate from the partners of a partnership company and its partners who are responsible as a compassion.” “This makes the prosecution process in the Cheque-BoENce cases with the removal of a technical obstacle significantly facilitating the proceeding against responsible persons, making it almost easier and faster.”
A company secretary Gaurav Pingle said that the distinction between the decision between a traditional company and a limited partnership of responsibility would be useful in interpreting other regulations, such as the law of Company.
“The Supreme Court has upheld the basic principles of the company’s law – IE, separate legal entity, continuous succession, (and) partnership firm’s responsibility for the obligation of the partnership firm in accordance with the law of negotiation instruments,” he said.
‘Every partner is responsible’
It contained a loan in the case La21 Lakh proceeded to the partners in Mouriya Madakattı by Dhanashingh Prabhu. A partner published a check on behalf of the company to pay the loan, but the check was dishonorable because the company’s account was frozen.
Prabhu published a legal notification to two partners of Mouriya Coirs, and did not call the company as a defendant. The Supreme Court of Madras broke the complaint on the grounds that the company was not arrested as a defendant.
The Supreme Court, which reverses this, investigated the different nature of a partnership company. Justice BV Nagarathna, who wrote for the counter, observed that a partnership is fundamentally different from a company.
“Partnership is only a suitable name for doing business by partners. Therefore, a firm is not an entity in law, but only individuals are a relationship of individuals, and the name of the company is only a collective name of the individuals who make up the company,” he wrote.
The Supreme Court announced that it is only a “compelling name for a company’s partners. In fact, moving against the partners is moving against the company itself.
The court referred to the 25th part of the Indian Partnership Law and said, “Each partner is a partner with all other partners and at the same time.
“The complaint may lie against the partners without naming the firm, because responsibility is not personal and proxy,” he said.
Although the Supreme Court’s decision solved a basic legal question, some experts pointed to possible challenges.
Awashy expressed concerns about the risk of abuse of abuse of partners’ daily operations of a partnership company or non -dishonorable checks.
“Partners in a partnership company may be opened in accordance with the law of NI against all partners, regardless of their real roles or participation in certain transactions, because they are personal, common and jointly responsible for the actions of the company,” he warned.
