Problem Statements and Solutions

Problem Statement: A partner of a partnership firm got retired from the firm on 1.4.1982. The firm was continuing to carry on its business. The firm took the loan on 1.3.1985. It was proved that the retiring partner neither represented himself as a partner nor allowed to be represented that he was a partner in the firm as on 1.3.1985. Can he be liable for the loan taken by the firm on 1.3.1985? Explain by highlighting the provisions of the Indian Partnership Act. Solution: The problem presented is under Section 28, 32 of the Partnership Act. Section 28 mentions about holding the representation of partner. According to section 32(3) of partnership act, notwithstanding the retirement of a partner from a firm, he and the partners continue to be liable as partners to third parties for any act done by any of them which would have been an act of the firm if done before the retirement, until public notice is given of the retirement provided that a retired partner is not liable to any third pa...

Problem Statement:  'A' and 'B' started business as a partnership firm but after some time, their relations became so strained that they stopped speaking to each other. Information between them was exchanged through the accountant  . The firm made huge profits and continued to do so. Can the court order its dissolution? Solution: The presented problem is related to  section 9 and 44(d) of the Partnership Act. Section 9 mentions that it is the duty of the partners to be faithful and they should be trustworthy to each other. If the opposite is happening, then the court can dissolve the firm under section 44 of partnership act, 1932. If a partner presents a suit for dissolution and clause (d) of section 44 of the partnership agreement is being continuously violated, then the firm can be dissolved. In the presented problem, the relationship between A and B in the partnership firm of A and B is so tense that there is no interaction between them and all the activities are don...

Problem Statement:  A, a minor child of 14 years, wins a prize of  one crore rupees in a T.V. program called "Kaun Banega Crorepati". Can A, a minor child claim maintenance from his father if his father neglects or refuses to pay maintenance? Solution - The problem presented is based on Section 125 (1) (b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. As per section 125(1) (b) if a person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain his legitimate or illegitimate minor child, whether married or not, who is unable to maintain himself and if so, such a child can file an application against the father for maintenance in the court. Thus in the presented problem A, though a minor child of 14 years of age but he is able to maintain himself because he has a sum of rupees one crore available with him ,therefore he is able to maintain himself and hence A , a minor child will not be entitled for maintenance from his father.  Conclusion - A , a minor child cannot demand maint...

Problem Statement : A, woman, during a quarrel with B, her sister in law  threw her 2- year- old child into a pond 4 feet deep in rage and told her that the death of this child would teach her a lesson, but C, who was standing near the pond took the child out immediately and the death of that child was averted. Is A, woman guilty under section 307 IPC for the attempt to murder that child?  Solution : The present problem is based on the facts of the case of Emperor vs Musummat Nannhi Bahu on 15 December, 1909. In this case, an accused during a quarrel with his sister- in- law threw her three year old child in a pond in a fit of rage. The pond was about 4 feet deep and was situated next to his house. A bystander C took the child out of the pond. She expressed during the quarrel that the death of the child would be a curse for the woman who was quarreling with her. In these circumstances, it can be presumed that it was her desire that the child should have died. Thus she is guilt...

Problem Statement :  A woman after a combat with her husband ran towards the well saying that she would jump into the well but before reaching the well she was caught by some people. Is she guilty of attempted suicide?  Solution: The presented problem is based on the fact of the case of Ranjit Export Private Ltd. vs Collector Of Customs, Madras on 6 September, 1984. In this case, a woman ran towards the well saying that she would jump into the well. But she was caught before reaching the well.  She is not guilty of attempt to commit suicide because there was a possibility that she might change his mind before reaching the well. Thus in the presented problem aRanjit Export Private Ltd. vs Collector Of Customs, Madras on 6 September, 1984 woman after a dispute with her husband, ran towards the well saying that she would jump into the well but before reaching the well she was caught by some people.  In the light of the said decision, woman is not guilty of attempting t...

Ans: Problem Statement:  A strikes his friend B with a blow on the ear, causing physical pain to B, but the pain was not serious. Has A voluntarily committed the offense of causing hurt? Answer with the help of decided cases. SOLUTION: The problem presented is based on section 319 and Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. According to section 319 of IPC , whoever causes bodily pain, disease or infirmity to any person is said to cause hurt. Section 323 of IPC mentions about the punishment for voluntarily causing hurt. But in Meredith vs Sanjibani Dasi on 7 September, 1914, the Calcutta High Court held that for voluntarily causing hurt , it is essential that the bodily pain must be severe and if such pain is not severe , the accused will get the benefit of section 95 IPC i.e., act causing slight harm. In the problem thus presented, A strikes his friend B with a blow on the ear, causing physical pain to B, but the pain was not severe. A does not, in accordance with the said ju...