Definition
In an unlimited partnership, every partner is liable, jointly with all the other partners and also severally, for all acts of the firm done while he is a partner. You can be held personally responsible for another partner's negligence or carelessness.

Partnership: (Sec-4)
A formal agreement between two or more parties to run a business and split the profits is called a partnership.

Individual individuals in a partnership are referred to as "partners," the group as a "firm," and the name under which their business is conducted is referred to as the "firm name."

In the case of Comptroller & Auditor General v. Kamlesh Vadilal Mehta[1], the appellant's skilled counsel initially argued that the decision to only accept applications from partnership firms was a matter of policy and therefore not subject to scrutiny by this Court.

This argument is meaningless. The distinction between drafting a policy, which is an administrative task, and performing statutory duties must be kept in mind. It is not possible to argue that the Comptroller and Auditor General have unrestricted and unreasonable discretion because the Companies Act statutorily assigns the Comptroller and Auditor General's role in the appointment of auditors for government firms and public sector undertakings.

When the CAG appoints an auditor to audit government enterprises and public sector undertakings under the Companies Act, he is plainly acting in accordance with the Companies Act's legislative requirements and not according to his own personal preferences.

In this case N. Khadervali Saheb v. N. Gudu Saheb[2],
N. Khadervali Saheb (dead) by Los. & anr. Vs. N. Gudu Sahib (dead) & Ors., and has claimed that if the remaining immovable property is given to a partner upon dissolution of a partnership firm, it does not constitute a gift transfer of the company's assets. Only a compendious name, given to the partnership and the corporation, is the firm name the actual owners of its assets are partners.

As in the case of Mollow, March & Co. v. Court of Wards[3], according to the guidelines set forth in the Cox v. Hickman[4] case, the court determined that Raja could not be regarded as a "Partner" in this case because the contract between Raja and the W. N. Watson Company did not establish a partnership; rather, the company wanted to settle a debt, so Raja was granted authority over and rights to its operations. As a result, Raja and the W. N. Watson Company have a debtor-creditor relationship, which prevents the Mollwo, March Company from suing Raja.

Mutual Rights:
The Parties acknowledge and agree that each Party's capacities, restrictions, needs, and/or wishes with regard to using the shared uses of the UARP facilities made available by the Cooperation Agreement and assigned by this Agreement may differ in terms of quantity, timing, and utilisation.

Liabilities:
The future financial rewards that an entity must forgo for other entities as a result of transactions or other previous events are known as liabilities.

Mutuals Rights And Liabilities Of A Partners (Sec-13)

1. a partner is not entitled to receive remuneration for taking part in the conduct of the business;
2. the partners are entitled to share equally in the profits earned, and shall contribute equally to the losses sustained by the firm;
3. where a partner is entitled to interest on the capital subscribed by him such interest shall be payable only out of profits;
4. a partner making, for the purpose of the business, any payment or advance beyond the amount of capital he has agreed to subscribe, to is entitled to interest thereon at the rate of six per cent. per annum;
5. the firm shall indemnify a partner in respect of payments made and liabilities incurred by him
   • in the ordinary and proper conduct of the business, and
   • in doing such act, in an emergency, for the purpose of protecting the firm from loss, as would be done by a person of ordinary prudence, in his own case, under similar circumstances;
6. a partner shall indemnify the firm for any loss caused to it by his wilful neglect in the conduct of the business of the firm.

In the case of M. Govinda & Co. v. Commissioner of I.T[5]., the Hon'ble Supreme Court ruled in M. Govinda & Co. v. Commissioner of I.T., Andhra Pradesh that if partners have agreed to divide profits in specific proportions, the presumption is that losses are also to be divided in similar proportions. Without a written agreement to the contrary, it is reasonable to assume that losses in a partnership will also be divided in a specific proportion just as profits are. Those who claim otherwise have the burden of demonstrating their innocence.

Conclusion
The participants in a partnership are able to create an agreement and specify their respective rights and obligations. Since the relationship between partners in a partnership is of the utmost good faith, it is the responsibility of each partner to work for the firm's greatest overall benefit and to put up extra effort to prevent any losses for the company.

Mutual rights of the firm are typically governed by the terms of the agreement, but there are some rights that are granted by law in cases where there is no specific agreement between the partners. These rights can be revoked by making a different agreement.

Determining the partnership property is crucial when determining the partners' respective ownership interests in the business. The property of the partnership is, in theory, nothing more than the combined property of all the partners.

The mutual rights and obligations of the partners are unaffected by any modifications to the partnership's bylaws or by the continuation of the partnership beyond the completion of the term or undertaking for which it was created.

Bibliography:

• The Indian Partnership Act, 1932 (9 of 1932) by LexisNexis
• https://blog.ipleaders.in/relation-of-partners/

End-Notes:

• Comptroller & Auditor General v. Kamlesh Vadilal Mehta, (2003) 2 SCC 349.
• N. Khadervali Saheb v. N. Gudu Saheb, (2003) 3 SCC 229.
• Mollow, March & Co. v. Court of Wards, (1872) LR 4 PC 419.
• Cox v. Hickman (1860) 8 HLC 268.
• M. Govinda & Co. v. Commissioner of I.T., Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1975 SC 2284.