Contract Law | Partnership
Shivagouda Ravji Patil v. Chandrakant Neelkanth Sedalge
ByVivek Kumar Verma	 January 23, 2012
1964 SCR (8) 233
[minor turns major, Section 30(5) ]
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 did not exercise his option to become a partner under Section 30(5) of the Indian Partnership Act.[1] When the appellants claimed their dues, the respondents were unable to pay them and so all three of them were sued by the appellants for adjudicating them for being insolvent.
Is respondent 1, who did not exercise his right to be a partner for the firm, a partner under Section 30(5) of the Indian Partnership Act?
Trial Court: Declared all the partners including the minor (respondent 1) insolvent.
High Court: Respondent 1 was not a partner of the firm.
Contention [The appellants (creditor)]: Respondent 1 is a partner of the firm as he did not exercise his option to be a partner in the firm under Section 30(5).
Under ordinary circumstances a respondent 1 would be a partner of the firm. However, in this case he had attained majority only after the firm had been dissolved. A minor after attaining majority cannot elect to be a partner of a firm that does not exist. Hence Section 30 of the Partnership Act does not apply to him.
Appeal dismissed with costs.
[1] At any time within six months of his attaining majority, or of his obtaining knowledge that he had been admitted to the benefits of partnership, whichever date is later, such person may give public notice that he has elected to become or that he has elected not to become a partner in the firm, and such notice shall determine his position as regards the firm
Commissioner of Income Tax, Madhya Pradesh v. Dewas Cine Corporation
Birdichand Sukhraj Marwadi v. Harakchand Jagraj Marwadi
Agency | Contract Law
Keighley Maxted and Co. v. Durant
Keighley Maxted & Co. v. Durant [1901] AC 240 (Undisclosed Principle) FACTS: K & Co authorized Roberts, a corn merchant, to buy wheat on a joint account for himself and them at a certain price. Roberts, on his own behalf and without authority of anybody else, bought wheat at a higher price than the authorized…
State of Madras v. Jayalakshmi Rice Mill Contractors Co. and Ors.
State of Madras v. Jayalakshmi Rice Mill Contractors Co. and Ors. AIR 1959 AP 352 (Difference between agency and license) FACTS: The Food Procurement Order, authorised the licensees (rice millers in the Districts of East Godavari, West Godavari and Krishna) to procure rice and paddy from, the producers to sell them in the market at…
Contract Law | Indemnity and Guarantee
Ansal Engg. Proj. Ltd. v. Tehri Hydro Development Corp. Ltd. and Anr.
Ansal Engg. Proj. Ltd. v. Tehri Hydro Development Corp. Ltd. & Anr. 1997 88 CompCas 149 SC (if no fraud involved, court has no role) FACTS: The petitioner/appellant (A) had undertaken to do some construction for the defendant/respondent(R) and as per the terms of the contract had furnished a bank guarantee (BG) for faithful performance…
Bailment | Contract Law
The Official Assignee of Madras v. The Mercantile Bank Of India Ltd.
The Official Assignee of Madras v. The Mercantile Bank Of India Ltd. (1935) 37 BOMLR 130 FACTS: The Official Assignee of Madras has been assigned with the property of the insolvents CK Nayaran and sons. The insolvents had a big business of groundnuts. They were purchased from up-country and transported through railways to the madras…
Basic Principles of Contract | Contract Law
Derry v. Peek
ByVivek Kumar Verma	 January 30, 2013 September 24, 2020
Derry v. Peek (1889) LR 14 App Cas 337 (Misrepresentation or Fraud—Collateral Warranty) FACTS: A tramway company's prospectus stated that it had the right to use steam power for moving carriages as an absolute right, though in actuality it was subject to condition of Board of Trade (BoT). Plaintiff, on faith of that statement, took…
Hindustan Steel Workers Construction Ltd. v. G.S. Atwal & Co. (Engineers) Pvt. Ltd.
Hindustan Steel Workers Construction (HS)[1] Ltd. v. G.S. Atwal & Co. (Engineers) Pvt. Ltd. (GS)[2] 1995 SCC (6) 76 (Unconditional Bank Guarantee, Performance Guarantee) FACTS HS and GS entered into contracts whereby GS was to construct 11 schools. The United Commercial Bank, Calcutta (Bank) gave two Bank Guarantees (BG1 &2) to HS on behalf…