Scroll Top

Dissolution of Partnership firm

The phrase “Dissolution of Partnership firm” refers to the end of any communication between the firm’s participants. The dissolution of a firm is defined under section 39 of the partnership Act as “the dissolution of partnership between all partners of a firm.” The Dissolution must be


The phrase “Dissolution of Partnership firm” refers to the end of any communication between the firm’s participants. The dissolution of a firm is defined under section 39 of the partnership Act as “the dissolution of partnership between all partners of a firm.” The Dissolution must be accomplished through an act of the parties or on the basis of events that clearly indicate such a procedure. The intent of the parties will ultimately determine how the firm is dissolved, and if there is no record in the form of a public notice that demonstrates this intent, it must be ascertained from the facts and circumstances of the case. When a company dissolves, its operations come to an end, and only its assets are divided among its partners. Sometimes they desire to continue the firm even in the event of a partner’s passing, insolvency, or retirement. When a person passes away or retires, there is just one when the partnership dissolves; the share of the departing or deceased member is determined using specified manner without dissolving the company. There is a conflict between a factual and legal issue when the partnership was ended.

Dissolution of Partnership firm vs. Dissolution of Partners

According to the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 in many ways dissolutions of a Partnership take place as mentioned in Sections 40, 41, 42, 43, and 44. The Dissolution of a Partnership firm is different from the dissolution of its partners in that all business operations are halted by the remaining partners in the firm, and all assets are used to pay off any outstanding debt at the moment of dissolution. A partnership’s breakup, nevertheless terminates the firm’s and its partner’s contractual and legal ties. The breakdown of partners occurs when one partner leaves the business and the other continues it.

Types of dissolution of the Partnership firm

  • Dissolution by agreement

Section 40 of the Partnership Act discusses dissolution by contract between partners or by an agreement that a firm may be dissolved with the approval of all partners. The same way that a partnership is formed by the consent of all the partners, it can also be dissolved by same means through mutual agreement of the partners.

The partners consent is not required, but it may be inferred from the facts that the firm should be dissolved. When one partner give notice of the firm’s impending dissolution and the other partners don’t respond, it is presumed that they have granted their assent. It’s not uncommon for the parties to agree in writing how and when to dissolve a business. Any event, including physical disability, temperamental incompatibility, mental instability, or dishonesty, may be a ground of an express clause in the articles without the consent of the court, the partnership is dissolved.

  • Compulsory dissolution

 A firm is dissolved, according to Section 41 of the partnership Act, in the case of a forced dissolution. When illegal events make it difficult for partners to conduct business.

  1. As a result of the dissolution of the partnership firm under section 41 of the Act.
  2. A situation where all partners, or all but one partner, has been declared insolvent.
  3. When additional prosecution becomes unlawful for commerce.
  4. When it become unlawful for partners to continue operating a partnership.
  5. When further legal action against the company is problematic.

Dissolution when specific circumstances occur (section 42

  • Expiry of term

The firm gets dissolved when the Partnership is for a fixed period unless the partners have made a contract to the contrary. Section 42 (a) of the Partnership act provides that a firm dissolved:-

Due to the term’s expiration, partners may continue their company for the predetermined amount of time if they agree to do so in violation of the terms of the agreement. There may be an explicit or implicit extension. The same rights and obligation remain for a longer time frame unless otherwise specified before the term’s conclusion.

  • Death of a partner

If there is a contract to the contrary, a partnership may be at will, for a certain amount of time, or it may dissolve upon the death of a partner. A company may be dissolved “subject to a contract,” as stated in section 42(c) of the partnership Act. Only a partnership may be subject to the provisions of the Act between the partners. Where there are more than two partners, but not when the firm only has two partners.

  • Insolvency of a partner

The insolvency of a partner is discussed in Section 42(d) and 42(a). In the absence of a contract to the contrary, the bankruptcy of any partner may result in the firm’s dissolution. Through the rule will only be in effect for a certain amount of time, the partnership has already been formed.

  • The conclusion of the journey

Unless there is a specific agreement to the contrary, a partnership that has been formed for a specific experience terminates after the adventure is over. According to section 42(b) of the partnership Act, a firm is dissolved, subject to a compact between the partners. A term or ‘terminus ad quem’ is attached to under the Act. The partnership via letter and was not intended to last for a specified amount of time.

In Basantlal Jalan v. Chiranjilal Sanawgi and others (AIR1968), a company was established for the explicit purpose of undertaking to supply a particular amount of gain, and the contract was prematurely cancelled when just part of the items had been sent. According to this belief, the partnership remained intact and was only dissolved after the assets were fully realized.

Dissolution by notice at will

Section 43 the Act’s Section 43 dealt with the dissolution of a partnership at will by notice. A partnership firm may dissolve with the consent to do so by written notice.

Dissolution by the court: According to Section 44 of the partnership Act, a court may dissolve a firm upon a partner’s suit on any of the following grounds.

  • Unsoundness of mind According to clause (a) of Section 44 of the act, if the partner loses mental capacity, the court may order that the partner may file a lawsuit.
  • Permanent inability to execute out tasks.

In accordance with Section 44(b) of the Act, the court may order the partnership to dissolve if any partner is permanently unable to discharge their duties.

Misconduct- Under Section 44(c) of the Act, the court may order the dissolution of the partner who so suing is found to have engaged in conduct that has a negative impact on the company. This partner’s criminal conviction will give the other partners reason to request the firm’s dissolution.

Persistent breach of the partnership agreement: According to Section 44 clause (d) of the partnership Act, the court may issue a judgment for the dissolution of the court rather than suing the partner for willfully breaking the agreement. Pertaining to corporate behaviour issues or the management of the company’s activities which makes it appropriate for additional partners to conduct business together.

Attachment of share- Clause (e) of Section 44 of the act adds two grounds for attaching a share: private transfer and sale by invitation. The court’s decision to dissolve a partnership where a partner other than the one who filed the lawsuit surrendered his whole interest in the partnership to a third party or let his portion to transaction pursuant to order XXI of the first schedule to the code of civil procedure’s rule49 method 1908 or authorized to sell in order to recoup any unpaid land revenue recoverable debt owed to the partner.

Loss – Clause (f) of section 44 of the Partnership act states that if the firm cannot continue at a loss, the court shall order the firm’s dissolution. In this situation, the court may dissolve the firm at the request of a partner.

In Rehmatunnisa v. Price, (AIR 1917 PC 116), It was observed that whether the partnership was for a definite term or a specific adventure could not limit the court’s power in circumstances of loss. Loss ought to be cognizable. Where there was a loss of roughly a thousand rupees in six months the one lakh rupee capital investment was not a reason for dissolution.


The aforementioned explanation of the dissolution of the partnership might be interpreted to mean that each partner has obligations and rights under the relationship. The act also contributes to the stability of the workplace environment.

Author(s) Name: Bharti Kumari (Chotanagpur Law college, Ranchi University, Jharkhand)