Contract of Partnership act 1935 nature definition of paternship act

---

Contract of Partnership

1. Nature and Definition of Partnership

Definition

• Section 4 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 defines partnership as:

  “Partnership is the relation between persons who have agreed to share the profits of a business carried on by all or any of them acting for all.”

Thus, partnership is based on contract, profit-sharing, and mutual agency.

---

Essential Elements of Partnership

To determine whether a partnership exists, the following conditions must be satisfied:

1. Agreement between Persons

   • Partnership arises from a contract, not from status (like joint family).
   • Example: In a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF), members may do business together but it is not partnership because there is no contract.
   • Case law: Chandrakant Manilal Shah v. CIT (1992) – Partnership must be based on agreement; HUF business is not partnership.

2. Existence of Business

   • There must be a business (trade, occupation, or profession).
   • Mere co-ownership of property is not partnership.
   • Case law: Cox v. Hickman (1860) – Sharing profits alone is not enough; intention to run a business together is important.

3. Sharing of Profits

   • Partners must agree to share profits (and losses, if any).
   • Profit-sharing is a strong test but not the sole test.
   • Case law: Mollow March & Co. v. Court of Wards (1872) – Profit-sharing is prima facie evidence of partnership but not conclusive.

4. Mutual Agency

   • This is the true test of partnership.
   • Every partner is both principal and agent of the firm.
   • One partner can bind the firm and the others by his acts done in the course of business.
   • Case law: Cox v. Hickman (1860) – Existence of mutual agency is the real test of partnership.

---

Relationship of Partnership with Other Forms of Business

1. Partnership vs. Co-ownership

   • Co-owners do not necessarily share profits.
   • Co-ownership arises by law (inheritance, gift, etc.), whereas partnership arises by contract.

2. Partnership vs. Company

   • Company is a separate legal entity; partnership firm is not.
   • Liability of partners is unlimited, while in a company liability of shareholders is generally limited.

3. Partnership vs. HUF Business

   • HUF business is based on status and birth, while partnership is based on contract.

---

Determination of Existence of Partnership

Section 6 of the Act lays down that real relation between parties must be determined from the substance of the agreement, not merely the form.

• Case law: K.D. Kamath & Co. v. CIT (1971) – Court will see intention of parties, conduct, and terms of agreement to decide partnership.

---

Non-partnership Interests

• Sharing profits does not always mean partnership.
• For example:
  • Payment of debt from profits,
  • Wages of employees linked with profits,
  • Widow/representative of deceased partner receiving share,
  • Loan linked with profit share.
• These are not partnerships.

---

Conclusion

Partnership is a special contract based on agreement to carry on business with the motive of profit and the principle of mutual agency. While profit-sharing is an important test, the real test is mutual agency. Courts look into intention and conduct of parties rather than mere words.

Important Case Laws to Mention:

• Cox v. Hickman (1860) → Mutual agency is the real test.
• Mollow March & Co. v. Court of Wards (1872) → Profit-sharing not conclusive.
• K.D. Kamath & Co. v. CIT (1971) → Court will see real relation, not just form.
• Chandrakant Manilal Shah v. CIT (1992) → HUF business is not partnership.