Bissoy.com
Doctors Medicines MCQs Q&A

Who amongst the following is not liable, in the absence of a public notice of dissolution, under section 45 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, after dissolution of the firm

Who amongst the following is not liable, in the absence of a public notice of dissolution, under section 45 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, after dissolution of the firm Correct Answer All the above

Related Questions

The Propositions are:
(1) Where a partner of a professional business partnership borrows money in the usual and regular course of business stating that the money is to be used for partnership business but misappropriates it, the other partners shall be liable.
(2) Where money has been borrowed by a partner without authority, but has been applied to the legitimate business needs of the firm, the firm is liable.
(3) Where the act is within the scope of the implied authority of a partner, but it has been done by him, to the knowledge of the third party, not for the firm but for his own purposes, the firm is liable.
Which of the following is true in accordance with Indian Partnership Act, 1932 as to the aforesaid propositions?
Consider the following for the dissolution of trade unions under the Trade Union Act, 1926. Which of the following statement(s) is/are correct?
1. When a registered Trade Union is dissolved, notice of the dissolution is signed by nine members and by the Secretary of the Trade Union.
2. The notice of dissolution must be sent within ten days to the Registrar.
3. Where the dissolution of a registered Trade Union has been registered and the rules of the Trade Union donot provide forthe distribution of funds of the Trade Union on dissolution, the registrar shall divide the funds amongst the members in such manner as may be prescribed.
Under section 45 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, if no public notice of the dissolution of the firm is given and a partner contracts in the name of the firm, which would have been within the implied authority of the partner
The changes in the constitution of the firm or dissolution of the firm, where the firm is a registered firm, under section 63 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, has to be notified to the Registrar by
A', 'B' and 'C' are partners in a partnership firm named A, B & C. 'A' retires from the firm without giving any public notice. Thereafter, an existing creditor lends Rs. ten lakh to the firm on the basis of his knowledge that 'A', 'B' and 'C' are the three partners in the firm. This amount remains unpaid by the firm. The creditor wants to recover the unpaid loan amount from the firm.
A partner who has paid premium for admission into the partnership, in the premature dissolution of the firm, under section 51 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, is not entitled to refund of the premium if the dissolution is occasioned by
It is necessary under section 45 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, that the public notice as to the dissolution of the firm, be given by
A, B and C are partners in a firm. C retires and X admitted as a new partner. The firm did not give a public notice on the change but continued its business in its old firm name. Z, a customer of the firm, deals with the firm after the change and the firm becomes indebted to him:
A suit of a partnership firm to enforce any type of rights of the partnership firm is not maintainable unless the partnership firm is registered under Section 69 of the Partnership Act before the filing of the suit.
Notice to a partner', under section 24 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 does not operate as 'notice to the firm' in case