All Courses
Explore Courses UPSC Exam UPSC Test Series Free Notes EduRev Infinity Get the App Login Join for Free
Sign in Open App
CLAT Exam  >  CLAT Questions  >  PRINCIPLE:A partner is liable for the debts i... Start Learning for Free
PRINCIPLE: A partner is liable for the debts incurred by the other partners in the course of partnership.
FACTS: Aditya, Ravi and Suraj enter into a partnership to open a restaurant, Golden Harvest in Mumbai. Initially the restaurant does good business, but after a year, owing to staff shortage, the quality of food starts deteriorating. People start criticizing the restaurant and their business reduces significantly. There comes a day when they are forced to shut down their restaurant, and end their partnership. Following this, Ravi goes to Seth Karodimal to borrow some money on the pretext of re-opening his restaurant. However, he runs away with the money. Seth Karodimal sues Aditya and Suraj for the money. Decide.
  • a)
    Aditya and Suraj are not under any obligation to pay the Seth
  • b)
    Aditya and Suraj are not liable to pay because it was not their fault that Ravi ran off
  • c)
    Aditya and Suraj are liable to pay the Seth since they were Ravi’s partners
  • d)
    None of the above
Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?
Clear all your CLAT doubts with EduRev
Most Upvoted Answer
PRINCIPLE:A partner is liable for the debts incurred by the other part...
The act of borrowing money and then running away with the money did not occur in the course of partnership. Hence, Ravi is liable alone.
Free Test
FREE
Start Free Test
Start Free Test
Community Answer
PRINCIPLE:A partner is liable for the debts incurred by the other part...
Option A is correct that aditya and suraj are not under any obligation to pay the seth because when ravi take money from seth ,they are not partners at that time.
Explore Courses for CLAT exam

Similar CLAT Doubts

Typically, when we imagine a rule or constraint as binding, we think of it as unavoidable. Binding constraints are those we suppose to be absolute and incapable of being overridden by other considerations. If a precedent is binding, then a court bound by it simply must follow it. Period.There is no reason, however, why even a binding authority should be understood in this way. Although a binding authority creates an obligation on the part of the bound court to use that authority, such an obligation need not be absolute. In life, genuine obligations can be overridden by even stronger ones. I am obliged to keep my promises, so I must keep my lunch date with you even if I no longer find you interesting. But if a close relative has fallen ill, it is understood that my obligation is overridden by the even stronger one to attend to ailing relatives. Similarly, a police officer refrains from giving a speeding ticket to the man who is rushing his pregnant wife to the hospital. Indeed, rights operate in the same way.Just as obligations can be obligatory without being absolutely so, so too can authorities be authoritative without being absolutely authoritative. Most authorities are therefore not binding or controlling in the absolute sense, and treating a source as authoritative or even mandatory does not entail following it come what may. A judge of the District Court is bound by the decisions of the High Court, but he is also bound by the decisions of the Supreme Court, and if in some case the relevant High Court precedent turns out to dictate one outcome while the relevant Supreme Court case indicates another, the obligation to follow the Supreme Court will override the obligation to follow the High Court.Similarly, the best understanding of stare decisis is that a subsequent court is bound to follow the earlier decisions of the same court, but this too is not an absolute obligation. The Supreme Court can overturn its own precedents when there is a “special justification”, not that it believes that the previous Court was mistaken. Something more is required, something “special,” but it is possible to overrule. The earlier case is a binding precedent, but here, unlike in the situation involving vertical precedent, where we understand binding to mean non overridable by any other consideration, the binding force of stare decisis is real but decidedly non absolute.Q. In which of the following situations is the obligation likely to be overruled, based on the author’s reasoning?

Directions: Kindly read the passage carefully and answer the questions given beside.There are a number of consumer-centric industries in India that have developed into duopolies. In many of them, the government is directly or indirectly breaking the hold of the top two companies. What is even more welcome is that it is doing this by empowering new entrants rather than laying constraints on incumbent giants. An emerging yet effective tool towards this is the Open Network for Digital Commerce, or ONDC.Formal duopolies–where two companies control all of the supply in a market–won’t be created thanks to the vigilance of the Competition Commission of India. However, there are industries such as transport, telecom, e-commerce, and other highly consumer-focussed sectors where two companies are currently acquiring overwhelming market share.This is not unexpected. Indeed, it’s not even unwelcome. India needs big companies in each sector. This is why the government’s approach — to empower other, smaller entrants rather than clip the wings of the giants — is a welcome one.Two of the most visible sectors, as far as customers are concerned, are food delivery and e-commerce. While Swiggy and Zomato dominate the former, Amazon and Flipkart rule the latter. Food delivery and e-commerce are prime examples of sectors where the government has indirectly created a mechanism to break the dominance of the two incumbents. The ONDC platform, set up in December last year by the Ministry of Commerce and Industry, allows sellers and buyers to directly communicate with each other. Recently, ONDC has been creating waves by gradually emerging as an alternative to Swiggy and Zomato in the food delivery space.The dominance of these two food delivery apps, and the fact that they use their own delivery drivers, has allowed them to impose high commissions on restaurants using their platforms, something that the restaurant owners have been protesting against. And while several restaurants in India’s metros opted out of these platforms, they eventually returned for the extensive reach and accessibility offered by these two platforms.ONDC, although still nascent, can be a potential alternative for restaurants in bypassing the food delivery apps. Restaurants will have to organise their own delivery, but the ONDC facilitates this as well. And the restaurants are free to negotiate better deals with companies like Dunzo, Shiprocket, or Loadshare that can deliver the food for them. If this takes off, it could also increase competition in the delivery space as well, further allowing restaurants to negotiate more effectively. In all of this, customers stand to benefit.The ONDC platform stands to do the same for the e-commerce space as well. At the moment, a consumer looking for a product on Amazon or Flipkart can choose from only those items that are available on these platforms. Once ONDC is adopted widely, consumers will have access to products across platforms, thereby giving them more choice in terms of products as well as prices.Amazon and Flipkart haven’t signed on to ONDC yet, but there is considerable unofficial pressure from the government to join.Q.According to the passage, why does the government want to empower smaller entrants rather than clip the wings of giants in various sectors?

Directions: Kindly read the passage carefully and answer the questions given beside.There are a number of consumer-centric industries in India that have developed into duopolies. In many of them, the government is directly or indirectly breaking the hold of the top two companies. What is even more welcome is that it is doing this by empowering new entrants rather than laying constraints on incumbent giants. An emerging yet effective tool towards this is the Open Network for Digital Commerce, or ONDC.Formal duopolies–where two companies control all of the supply in a market–won’t be created thanks to the vigilance of the Competition Commission of India. However, there are industries such as transport, telecom, e-commerce, and other highly consumer-focussed sectors where two companies are currently acquiring overwhelming market share.This is not unexpected. Indeed, it’s not even unwelcome. India needs big companies in each sector. This is why the government’s approach — to empower other, smaller entrants rather than clip the wings of the giants — is a welcome one.Two of the most visible sectors, as far as customers are concerned, are food delivery and e-commerce. While Swiggy and Zomato dominate the former, Amazon and Flipkart rule the latter. Food delivery and e-commerce are prime examples of sectors where the government has indirectly created a mechanism to break the dominance of the two incumbents. The ONDC platform, set up in December last year by the Ministry of Commerce and Industry, allows sellers and buyers to directly communicate with each other. Recently, ONDC has been creating waves by gradually emerging as an alternative to Swiggy and Zomato in the food delivery space.The dominance of these two food delivery apps, and the fact that they use their own delivery drivers, has allowed them to impose high commissions on restaurants using their platforms, something that the restaurant owners have been protesting against. And while several restaurants in India’s metros opted out of these platforms, they eventually returned for the extensive reach and accessibility offered by these two platforms.ONDC, although still nascent, can be a potential alternative for restaurants in bypassing the food delivery apps. Restaurants will have to organise their own delivery, but the ONDC facilitates this as well. And the restaurants are free to negotiate better deals with companies like Dunzo, Shiprocket, or Loadshare that can deliver the food for them. If this takes off, it could also increase competition in the delivery space as well, further allowing restaurants to negotiate more effectively. In all of this, customers stand to benefit.The ONDC platform stands to do the same for the e-commerce space as well. At the moment, a consumer looking for a product on Amazon or Flipkart can choose from only those items that are available on these platforms. Once ONDC is adopted widely, consumers will have access to products across platforms, thereby giving them more choice in terms of products as well as prices.Amazon and Flipkart haven’t signed on to ONDC yet, but there is considerable unofficial pressure from the government to join.Q.What is the main issue faced by restaurants with food delivery apps like Swiggy and Zomato, as mentioned in the passage?

Directions: Kindly read the passage carefully and answer the questions given beside.There are a number of consumer-centric industries in India that have developed into duopolies. In many of them, the government is directly or indirectly breaking the hold of the top two companies. What is even more welcome is that it is doing this by empowering new entrants rather than laying constraints on incumbent giants. An emerging yet effective tool towards this is the Open Network for Digital Commerce, or ONDC.Formal duopolies–where two companies control all of the supply in a market–won’t be created thanks to the vigilance of the Competition Commission of India. However, there are industries such as transport, telecom, e-commerce, and other highly consumer-focussed sectors where two companies are currently acquiring overwhelming market share.This is not unexpected. Indeed, it’s not even unwelcome. India needs big companies in each sector. This is why the government’s approach — to empower other, smaller entrants rather than clip the wings of the giants — is a welcome one.Two of the most visible sectors, as far as customers are concerned, are food delivery and e-commerce. While Swiggy and Zomato dominate the former, Amazon and Flipkart rule the latter. Food delivery and e-commerce are prime examples of sectors where the government has indirectly created a mechanism to break the dominance of the two incumbents. The ONDC platform, set up in December last year by the Ministry of Commerce and Industry, allows sellers and buyers to directly communicate with each other. Recently, ONDC has been creating waves by gradually emerging as an alternative to Swiggy and Zomato in the food delivery space.The dominance of these two food delivery apps, and the fact that they use their own delivery drivers, has allowed them to impose high commissions on restaurants using their platforms, something that the restaurant owners have been protesting against. And while several restaurants in India’s metros opted out of these platforms, they eventually returned for the extensive reach and accessibility offered by these two platforms.ONDC, although still nascent, can be a potential alternative for restaurants in bypassing the food delivery apps. Restaurants will have to organise their own delivery, but the ONDC facilitates this as well. And the restaurants are free to negotiate better deals with companies like Dunzo, Shiprocket, or Loadshare that can deliver the food for them. If this takes off, it could also increase competition in the delivery space as well, further allowing restaurants to negotiate more effectively. In all of this, customers stand to benefit.The ONDC platform stands to do the same for the e-commerce space as well. At the moment, a consumer looking for a product on Amazon or Flipkart can choose from only those items that are available on these platforms. Once ONDC is adopted widely, consumers will have access to products across platforms, thereby giving them more choice in terms of products as well as prices.Amazon and Flipkart haven’t signed on to ONDC yet, but there is considerable unofficial pressure from the government to join.Q.Why is there unofficial pressure on Amazon and Flipkart to join ONDC, according to the passage?

Typically, when we imagine a rule or constraint as binding, we think of it as unavoidable. Binding constraints are those we suppose to be absolute and incapable of being overridden by other considerations. If a precedent is binding, then a court bound by it simply must follow it. Period.There is no reason, however, why even a binding authority should be understood in this way. Although a binding authority creates an obligation on the part of the bound court to use that authority, such an obligation need not be absolute. In life, genuine obligations can be overridden by even stronger ones. I am obliged to keep my promises, so I must keep my lunch date with you even if I no longer find you interesting. But if a close relative has fallen ill, it is understood that my obligation is overridden by the even stronger one to attend to ailing relatives. Similarly, a police officer refrains from giving a speeding ticket to the man who is rushing his pregnant wife to the hospital. Indeed, rights operate in the same way.Just as obligations can be obligatory without being absolutely so, so too can authorities be authoritative without being absolutely authoritative. Most authorities are therefore not binding or controlling in the absolute sense, and treating a source as authoritative or even mandatory does not entail following it come what may. A judge of the District Court is bound by the decisions of the High Court, but he is also bound by the decisions of the Supreme Court, and if in some case the relevant High Court precedent turns out to dictate one outcome while the relevant Supreme Court case indicates another, the obligation to follow the Supreme Court will override the obligation to follow the High Court.Similarly, the best understanding of stare decisis is that a subsequent court is bound to follow the earlier decisions of the same court, but this too is not an absolute obligation. The Supreme Court can overturn its own precedents when there is a “special justification”, not that it believes that the previous Court was mistaken. Something more is required, something “special,” but it is possible to overrule. The earlier case is a binding precedent, but here, unlike in the situation involving vertical precedent, where we understand binding to mean non overridable by any other consideration, the binding force of stare decisis is real but decidedly non absolute.Q. Based on the information provided in the passage, if there is a case in the District court, and there are precedents in the High Court and Supreme Court with contradictory outcomes, which outcome is binding on the District court?

Top Courses for CLATView all

Top Courses for CLAT

PRINCIPLE:A partner is liable for the debts incurred by the other partners in the course of partnership.FACTS: Aditya, Ravi and Suraj enter into a partnership to open a restaurant, Golden Harvest in Mumbai. Initially the restaurant does good business, but after a year, owing to staff shortage, the quality of food starts deteriorating. People start criticizing the restaurant and their business reduces significantly. There comes a day when they are forced to shut down their restaurant, and end their partnership. Following this, Ravi goes to Seth Karodimal to borrow some money on the pretext of re-opening his restaurant. However, he runs away with the money. Seth Karodimal sues Aditya and Suraj for the money. Decide.a)Aditya and Suraj are not under any obligation to pay the Sethb)Aditya and Suraj are not liable to pay because it was not their fault that Ravi ran offc)Aditya and Suraj are liable to pay the Seth since they were Ravi’s partnersd)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?
Question Description
PRINCIPLE:A partner is liable for the debts incurred by the other partners in the course of partnership.FACTS: Aditya, Ravi and Suraj enter into a partnership to open a restaurant, Golden Harvest in Mumbai. Initially the restaurant does good business, but after a year, owing to staff shortage, the quality of food starts deteriorating. People start criticizing the restaurant and their business reduces significantly. There comes a day when they are forced to shut down their restaurant, and end their partnership. Following this, Ravi goes to Seth Karodimal to borrow some money on the pretext of re-opening his restaurant. However, he runs away with the money. Seth Karodimal sues Aditya and Suraj for the money. Decide.a)Aditya and Suraj are not under any obligation to pay the Sethb)Aditya and Suraj are not liable to pay because it was not their fault that Ravi ran offc)Aditya and Suraj are liable to pay the Seth since they were Ravi’s partnersd)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? for CLAT 2025 is part of CLAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CLAT exam syllabus. Information about PRINCIPLE:A partner is liable for the debts incurred by the other partners in the course of partnership.FACTS: Aditya, Ravi and Suraj enter into a partnership to open a restaurant, Golden Harvest in Mumbai. Initially the restaurant does good business, but after a year, owing to staff shortage, the quality of food starts deteriorating. People start criticizing the restaurant and their business reduces significantly. There comes a day when they are forced to shut down their restaurant, and end their partnership. Following this, Ravi goes to Seth Karodimal to borrow some money on the pretext of re-opening his restaurant. However, he runs away with the money. Seth Karodimal sues Aditya and Suraj for the money. Decide.a)Aditya and Suraj are not under any obligation to pay the Sethb)Aditya and Suraj are not liable to pay because it was not their fault that Ravi ran offc)Aditya and Suraj are liable to pay the Seth since they were Ravi’s partnersd)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CLAT 2025 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for PRINCIPLE:A partner is liable for the debts incurred by the other partners in the course of partnership.FACTS: Aditya, Ravi and Suraj enter into a partnership to open a restaurant, Golden Harvest in Mumbai. Initially the restaurant does good business, but after a year, owing to staff shortage, the quality of food starts deteriorating. People start criticizing the restaurant and their business reduces significantly. There comes a day when they are forced to shut down their restaurant, and end their partnership. Following this, Ravi goes to Seth Karodimal to borrow some money on the pretext of re-opening his restaurant. However, he runs away with the money. Seth Karodimal sues Aditya and Suraj for the money. Decide.a)Aditya and Suraj are not under any obligation to pay the Sethb)Aditya and Suraj are not liable to pay because it was not their fault that Ravi ran offc)Aditya and Suraj are liable to pay the Seth since they were Ravi’s partnersd)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?.
Solutions for PRINCIPLE:A partner is liable for the debts incurred by the other partners in the course of partnership.FACTS: Aditya, Ravi and Suraj enter into a partnership to open a restaurant, Golden Harvest in Mumbai. Initially the restaurant does good business, but after a year, owing to staff shortage, the quality of food starts deteriorating. People start criticizing the restaurant and their business reduces significantly. There comes a day when they are forced to shut down their restaurant, and end their partnership. Following this, Ravi goes to Seth Karodimal to borrow some money on the pretext of re-opening his restaurant. However, he runs away with the money. Seth Karodimal sues Aditya and Suraj for the money. Decide.a)Aditya and Suraj are not under any obligation to pay the Sethb)Aditya and Suraj are not liable to pay because it was not their fault that Ravi ran offc)Aditya and Suraj are liable to pay the Seth since they were Ravi’s partnersd)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for CLAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CLAT Exam by signing up for free.
Here you can find the meaning of PRINCIPLE:A partner is liable for the debts incurred by the other partners in the course of partnership.FACTS: Aditya, Ravi and Suraj enter into a partnership to open a restaurant, Golden Harvest in Mumbai. Initially the restaurant does good business, but after a year, owing to staff shortage, the quality of food starts deteriorating. People start criticizing the restaurant and their business reduces significantly. There comes a day when they are forced to shut down their restaurant, and end their partnership. Following this, Ravi goes to Seth Karodimal to borrow some money on the pretext of re-opening his restaurant. However, he runs away with the money. Seth Karodimal sues Aditya and Suraj for the money. Decide.a)Aditya and Suraj are not under any obligation to pay the Sethb)Aditya and Suraj are not liable to pay because it was not their fault that Ravi ran offc)Aditya and Suraj are liable to pay the Seth since they were Ravi’s partnersd)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of PRINCIPLE:A partner is liable for the debts incurred by the other partners in the course of partnership.FACTS: Aditya, Ravi and Suraj enter into a partnership to open a restaurant, Golden Harvest in Mumbai. Initially the restaurant does good business, but after a year, owing to staff shortage, the quality of food starts deteriorating. People start criticizing the restaurant and their business reduces significantly. There comes a day when they are forced to shut down their restaurant, and end their partnership. Following this, Ravi goes to Seth Karodimal to borrow some money on the pretext of re-opening his restaurant. However, he runs away with the money. Seth Karodimal sues Aditya and Suraj for the money. Decide.a)Aditya and Suraj are not under any obligation to pay the Sethb)Aditya and Suraj are not liable to pay because it was not their fault that Ravi ran offc)Aditya and Suraj are liable to pay the Seth since they were Ravi’s partnersd)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for PRINCIPLE:A partner is liable for the debts incurred by the other partners in the course of partnership.FACTS: Aditya, Ravi and Suraj enter into a partnership to open a restaurant, Golden Harvest in Mumbai. Initially the restaurant does good business, but after a year, owing to staff shortage, the quality of food starts deteriorating. People start criticizing the restaurant and their business reduces significantly. There comes a day when they are forced to shut down their restaurant, and end their partnership. Following this, Ravi goes to Seth Karodimal to borrow some money on the pretext of re-opening his restaurant. However, he runs away with the money. Seth Karodimal sues Aditya and Suraj for the money. Decide.a)Aditya and Suraj are not under any obligation to pay the Sethb)Aditya and Suraj are not liable to pay because it was not their fault that Ravi ran offc)Aditya and Suraj are liable to pay the Seth since they were Ravi’s partnersd)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of PRINCIPLE:A partner is liable for the debts incurred by the other partners in the course of partnership.FACTS: Aditya, Ravi and Suraj enter into a partnership to open a restaurant, Golden Harvest in Mumbai. Initially the restaurant does good business, but after a year, owing to staff shortage, the quality of food starts deteriorating. People start criticizing the restaurant and their business reduces significantly. There comes a day when they are forced to shut down their restaurant, and end their partnership. Following this, Ravi goes to Seth Karodimal to borrow some money on the pretext of re-opening his restaurant. However, he runs away with the money. Seth Karodimal sues Aditya and Suraj for the money. Decide.a)Aditya and Suraj are not under any obligation to pay the Sethb)Aditya and Suraj are not liable to pay because it was not their fault that Ravi ran offc)Aditya and Suraj are liable to pay the Seth since they were Ravi’s partnersd)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice PRINCIPLE:A partner is liable for the debts incurred by the other partners in the course of partnership.FACTS: Aditya, Ravi and Suraj enter into a partnership to open a restaurant, Golden Harvest in Mumbai. Initially the restaurant does good business, but after a year, owing to staff shortage, the quality of food starts deteriorating. People start criticizing the restaurant and their business reduces significantly. There comes a day when they are forced to shut down their restaurant, and end their partnership. Following this, Ravi goes to Seth Karodimal to borrow some money on the pretext of re-opening his restaurant. However, he runs away with the money. Seth Karodimal sues Aditya and Suraj for the money. Decide.a)Aditya and Suraj are not under any obligation to pay the Sethb)Aditya and Suraj are not liable to pay because it was not their fault that Ravi ran offc)Aditya and Suraj are liable to pay the Seth since they were Ravi’s partnersd)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.
Explore Courses for CLAT exam

Top Courses for CLAT

Explore Courses
SaveJoin the Discussion on the App for FREE
Signup for Free!
Signup to see your scores go up within 7 days! Learn & Practice with 1000+ FREE Notes, Videos & Tests.
10M+ students study on EduRev
Get App
© EduRev
Education Revolution
Signup to see your scores go up within 7 days!
Access 1000+ FREE Docs, Videos and Tests
Takes less than 10 seconds to signup