Skip to content

CA Foundation · Business Laws · The Indian Partnership Act, 1932

Padma, Qasim and Rekha carry on business under a deed that allows retirement only with the consent of all partners. Padma wants to retire, and Qasim consents but Rekha refuses without any reason. The firm is not a partnership at will. Which statement is correct about Padma's retirement under the Act?

Padma cannot retire against Rekha's refusal. The Act allows retirement with the consent of all other partners or as per an express agreement. The deed requires everyone's consent, so Qasim's agreement alone, even though he is part of a majority, is not enough.

  1. APadma can retire by giving 14 days' notice in all cases
  2. BPadma can retire only with the consent of all the other partners as per the agreement, so she cannot retire against Rekha's refusalCorrect
  3. CPadma can retire with Qasim's consent alone because he is a majority
  4. DPadma can retire by giving notice to a court, which must accept it

Explanation

A partner may retire with the consent of all other partners or in accordance with an express agreement among the partners. Here the agreement requires consent of all, and Rekha has refused. Qasim's consent alone is insufficient as majority does not apply when all must consent.

Did you get it right without looking?

One question tells you little. A timed set on The Indian Partnership Act, 1932 shows your real accuracy, how long you take and where you lose marks.

Practise The Indian Partnership Act, 1932Free diagnostic mock

More The Indian Partnership Act, 1932 questions