Supreme Court: Partner’s Contributed Property Becomes Firm’s Asset, Legal Heirs Cannot Claim Ownership

  1. Home
  2. /
  3. Publications
  4. /
  5. Case Snippets
  6. /
  7. Supreme Court: Partner’s...

In Sachin Jaiswal vs. Hotel Alka Raje, SLP(C) No. 18717/2022, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that under Section 14 of the Partnership Act, 1932, any asset contributed by a partner to a firm becomes the property of the firm, and neither the contributing partner nor their legal heirs can claim exclusive ownership over such assets. The Court emphasized that a partnership firm, as a distinct legal entity for business purposes, collectively owns the assets introduced by its partners, and upon a partner’s demise, their legal heirs are entitled only to the monetary value of the deceased partner’s share in the firm, not specific assets. This ruling arose from a dispute where the legal heirs of a deceased partner sought ownership rights over certain firm assets, arguing that these originally belonged to their father, while the firm contended that once contributed, such assets became firm property. By reinforcing the principle that partnership assets cannot be subject to personal inheritance claims, the judgment promotes legal certainty and stability in business operations, ensuring that partnership property remains governed by the firm’s agreement and is not fragmented due to succession disputes.

Tags:

Let us help you!

If you need any help, please feel free to contact us. We will get back to you within one business day. Alternatively, if you're in a hurry, you can call us now

+91 9052538538
info@karavadi.in

Recent Case Snippets

Youth Bar Association Vs. Union of India, W.P.(CRL.) NO.68 of 2016

The Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with a Writ Petition in this landmark decision issued a slew of directions to make First Information Reports (FIRs) available to the… Read more »

Assessing Liability of Authorized Signatories in Cheque Dishonour

He who signs a dishonored cheque bears the consequences— a principle well-established by law and affirmed across several precedents. Determining the liability of a signatory is straightforward when… Read more »

Sazid Khan Vs. State of Haryana, 2018 Scc Online P&H 1733

The court held that, Criminal law does not recognise the terms 'same cause of action’. A per se FIR cannot be cancelled once evidence implicating the petitioner in… Read more »

Disclaimer

The Rules and Regulations set forth by the Bar Council of India under Advocates Act, 1961 prohibit Advocates or Law Firms from advertising or soliciting work through public domain communications. This website is intended solely to provide information. Karavadi & Associates (“K&A”) does not aim to advertise or solicit clients through this platform. K & A disclaim any responsibility for decisions made by readers/visitors based solely on the content of this website.

By clicking 'AGREE,' readers/visitors agree and acknowledge that the information provided herein (a) does not constitute advertising or solicitation, and (b) is intended solely for their understanding of K & A services. By continuing to use this site, you consent to the use of cookies on your device as outlined in our Cookie Policy.