Cheque issued by partnership firm

J S CHHABRA (Querist) 11 September 2011 This query is : Resolved
DEAR SIR,

A CHEQUE HAS BEEN ISSUED BY A UNREGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM ON 21.5.2007, WHEREIN IT WAS REQUIRED BY THE PARTNERSHIP DEED THAT ANY CHEQUE FOR PAYMENT IS REQUIRED TO BE SIGNED BY ALL THE PARTNERS. BUT IN THE PRESENT MATTER THE CHEQUE HAS BEEN BOUNCED WITH REMARKS "FUNDS INSUFFICIENT" AND THE CASE UNDER SECTION 138 NI ACT HAS BEEN FILED AGAINST ALL THE PARTNERS. FURTHER MORE A PARTNER HAS NOT SIGNED THE CHEQUE RATHER HE HAS BEEN RETIRED AND A NEW PARTNER HAS JOINED AT HIS PLACE VIDE NEW PARTNERSHIP DEED DATED 1.4.2008 DULY REGISTERED WITH REGISTRAR OF FIRMS.

CASE IS NOW AT THE STAGE FOR FRAMING OF CHARGE AGAINST THE SAID RETIRED PARTNER.

NOW PLEASE ADVISE ME WHAT IS THE LIABILITY OF THE PARTNER WHOSE SIGNATURE ARE NOT ON THE CHEQUE EVEN HE HAS BEEN RETIRED AND HAS BALANCE CAPITAL AS UNSECURED LOAN IN THE SAID FIRM.

REGARDS

Follow Query

Report Abuse

prabhakar singh (Expert) 11 September 2011
The liability of partners forming a partnership firm is always joint and several against third parties.So objection you point out is a matter between the partners,and not with a third party unless the third party has personal notice of all facts stated by you from the firm or from its any of partners.

Guest (Expert) 11 September 2011
I agree with the views of Shri Prabhakar Singh.

R.Ramachandran (Expert) 11 September 2011
I completely agree with the very correct views of Mr. Prabhakar.
Further, the cheque was issued in January 2007 when the partner was very much there. The partner might have retired subsequently and a new partnership might have come. That will not in any way take away the responsibility of the partner was there in the firm.
You say according to the partnership deed, any cheque has to be signed by all the partners. If that be so, then the bank would have also been duly notified accordingly. In which case, if only two signatures had been found on the cheque, the bank ought to have returned the cheque with the remarks "refer to drawer". Rather, the bank returned the cheque with the remarks "insufficient funds".
Since the cheque has been returned for insufficiency of funds (not for any defect or deficiency in the number of signatures) a clear case of offence u/s. 138 N.I. is made out.
All the partners are liable.

Devajyoti Barman (Expert) 11 September 2011
Yes I agree too. The retired partners are similarly liable for the acts of the firm which was done at the time of his contuing the partnership.

NOTTAM VENKATASAMY (Expert) 11 September 2011
I CERTAINLY AGREE TO EXPERT RAMACHANDRAN

Previous

Next

You need to be the querist or approved LAWyersclub expert to take part in this query .

Click here to login now

Similar Resolved Queries :

Ask Query
Unanswered Queries