M/s Aryan & Aryan LLP was registered on 2nd July 2019. Sudeep and Ankit were partners in the firm. Both Sudeep and Ankit were also the…
CA Intermediate · Corporate and Other Laws · MTP · May 2024
M/s Aryan & Aryan LLP was registered on 2nd July 2019. Sudeep and Ankit were partners in the firm. Both Sudeep and Ankit were also the designated partners in this firm. The LLP deals in manufacturing and trading of electric ceiling fans. One day Sudeep met with Mr. Kishore, a director of Krtiken Electronics Private Limited. After discussion, Mr. Kishore showed interest that Krtiken Electronics Private Limited may work with M/s Aryan & Aryan LLP as partner. Krtiken Electronics Private Limited was incorporated on 1st June 2017 with the object to deal in electronics. The memorandum and articles of association of Krtiken Electronics Private Limited also authorised it to work as partner in a LLP. The partners of M/s Aryan & Aryan LLP and directors of Krtiken Electronics Private Limited approached a professional consultant Mrs. Archika Jain for providing the procedure for adding Krtiken Electronics Private Limited as a partner in M/s Aryan & Aryan LLP. She advised that Krtiken Electronics Private Limited could not be the partner in M/s Aryan & Aryan LLP because as per Limited Liability Partnership Act 2008, an individual or a body corporate can be a partner in LLP. She informed that the term 'body corporate' was defined in the Limited Liability Partnership Act, 2008 as a company which is defined in section 3 of the Companies Act, 1956. As Krtiken Electronics Private Limited is registered under Companies Act 2013, it cannot be termed as body corporate. On the advice of Mrs. Archika Jain, M/s Aryan & Aryan LLP dropped the idea to add Krtiken Electronics Private Limited. It is further informed that Ms. Shanaya was admitted as a new partner in the firm on 17th January 2024. The firm intimated the registrar about her admission on 31st January 2024. On 3rd February 2024, while going to office Ms. Shanaya met with an accident and lost her memory. The doctor declared her of unsound mind to work as partner in M/s Aryan & Aryan LLP. It was also confirmed by a competent court. On the basis of above facts and by applying applicable provisions of the General Clauses Act, 1897 therein, choose the correct answer (one out of four) of the following MCQs (11-13) given herein under:-
Suggested Answer and Working Notes:
Correct Answer: Option (B)
Yes, because section 8 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 provides where any Act or Regulation made after the commencement of this Act, repeals and re-enacts, with or without modification, any provision of a former enactment, then references in any other enactment or in any instrument to the provision so repealed shall, unless a different intention appears, be construed as references to the provision so re-enacted. Therefore, after the enactment of Companies Act, 2013, the definition of “Body Corporate" should be construed as a company which is defined in section 2(20) of the Companies Act, 2013.
Topics: The Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999, The General Clauses Act, 1897
Related Questions in this Topic
- 14. Which of the following statements is/are correct with respect to the effect of repeal of an enactment under Section ...
- 12. Radiant Pharma Limited is a public company. Three of its major shareholders Mr. Kabir, Ms. Leela, and Sunrise Holdin...
- Ms. Rashida Qureshi is an Indian national. The following events occurred in sequence: 5th April, 2025: Ms. Rashida dep...
- Apex Green Energy LLP, engaged in the business of manufacturing solar-powered equipment, has been facing severe liquidit...
- Indian real estate market has long been a cornerstone of nation's economic growth attracting not only local demand but i...