Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether, on a proper construction of the partnership deeds, the guardians alone were the partners of the firms so that the firms were entitled to registration, or whether the minors represented by them were to be treated as full-fledged partners.
Analysis: The deeds described the newcomers as guardians representing their minor wards, and the Court treated the guardians as benamidars or representative partners. On that view, the legal relationship within the firm was between the guardians and the other partners, while any internal liability to account to the minors was outside the partnership arrangement. A minor cannot be made a full-fledged partner, but a guardian can validly enter into partnership in a representative capacity. The earlier authorities refusing registration were distinguished because, on the facts here, the guardians themselves, and not the minors, were the contracting partners.
Conclusion: The guardians were the partners in law, the minors were not partners, and refusal of registration was unsustainable.
Ratio Decidendi: A person who enters into a partnership as a guardian or benamidar has a real legal existence as partner vis-a -vis the other partners, and the internal arrangement with the minor beneficial owner does not affect the validity or genuineness of the partnership for registration purposes.