https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305083 The court held that the partnership firm was not liable for debts incurred by an individual partner, emphasizing the lack of intention to bind the firm. It also ruled that withholding amounts due to the firm based on a retired partner's alleged debts was invalid as the partner had retired and her liability was under civil court consideration. The nomination for receiving payments did not impose obligations on the firm, and the partner's actions did not indicate an intention to bind the firm. The writ petition was allowed, directing the release of withheld amounts while refraining from opining on the partner's liability in the civil suit. en-us Wed, 07 Jul 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 15 Nov 2022 17:42:42 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305083 The court held that the partnership firm was not liable for debts incurred by an individual partner, emphasizing the lack of intention to bind the firm. It also ruled that withholding amounts due to the firm based on a retired partner's alleged debts was invalid as the partner had retired and her liability was under civil court consideration. The nomination for receiving payments did not impose obligations on the firm, and the partner's actions did not indicate an intention to bind the firm. The writ petition was allowed, directing the release of withheld amounts while refraining from opining on the partner's liability in the civil suit. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 07 Jul 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305083