Service of notice and contractual debt acknowledgment preserved insolvency admission against a corporate guarantor despite limitation and natural just...
Original works exemption excludes standalone boulder transportation, leaving subcontracted railway-project transport services subject to service tax l...
Annual production capacity determinations excluding stenter galleries support refunds for unconstitutional excise levies without an unjust-enrichment ...
Vicarious liability for cheque dishonour requires specific allegations of responsibility and cheque signatory; generic director allegations cannot sus...
IT Resilience Index requires market infrastructure institutions to automate resilience scoring, early warnings, and continuous service-delivery monito...
The SC upheld that the partnership did not automatically dissolve upon the death of a partner, as Section 42 of the Partnership Act applies only to two-partner firms. Here, the partnership involved three partners, and the deed explicitly allowed continuation despite a partner's death. The Dealership Agreement empowered IOCL to either continue, reconstitute, or terminate the dealership upon such death. IOCL had not terminated the agreement but refused to recognize the reconstituted firm including the surviving partners and one heir, citing non-participation by all heirs. The SC found IOCL misconstrued its guidelines by denying recognition without valid grounds. Consequently, the partnership was deemed to continue lawfully, and the High Court's order upholding this was affirmed. The special leave petition was dismissed.
The SC upheld that the partnership did not automatically dissolve upon the death of a partner, as Section 42 of the Partnership Act applies only to two-partner firms. Here, the partnership involved three partners, and the deed explicitly allowed continuation despite a partner's death. The Dealership Agreement empowered IOCL to either continue, reconstitute, or terminate the dealership upon such death. IOCL had not terminated the agreement but refused to recognize the reconstituted firm including the surviving partners and one heir, citing non-participation by all heirs. The SC found IOCL misconstrued its guidelines by denying recognition without valid grounds. Consequently, the partnership was deemed to continue lawfully, and the High Court's order upholding this was affirmed. The special leave petition was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
