#partnership firm

The Karnataka High Court held that the Employees' Provident Fund Organisation cannot recover dues from a partner’s personal property unless all firm assets have been exhausted under Section 8B. This protects partners’ private assets from automatic liability for business debts, reinforcing the separation between firm and personal liability under labour law.

The Bombay High Court ruled that a licensee who previously acknowledged a partnership firm as the licensor cannot later deny its legal standing to file an eviction suit, even if the property title rests solely with an individual partner. This reinforces that admissions in lease dealings bind licensees under estoppel, protecting partnership entities from tactical legal reversals in eviction proceedings.

The ITAT Delhi has ruled that genuine GST returns, Form 26AS, and banking trails constitute conclusive proof of transactional legitimacy, rendering unsubstantiated third-party statements irrelevant in tax assessments. This sets a critical precedent for businesses dealing with related-party transactions, affirming that compliance documentation trumps speculative allegations during search-based assessments.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court ruled that a partner who retires from a firm remains liable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for cheques issued by the firm during their partnership tenure, pending evidence of liability discharge. This holding reinforces vicarious liability principles in partnership disputes, impacting retired partners facing cheque bounce prosecutions.

Madras High Court holds that convicting a partner under Section 138 NI Act after acquittal of the firm is legally unsustainable without proper pleading of vicarious liability.

Kerala High Court holds that a partnership firm's name change does not affect standing to prosecute under Section 138 NI Act; presumption of liability stands unless rebutted by credible evidence.