Doctrine of Holding Out
Doctrine of Holding Out
Meaning
The Doctrine of Holding Out is based on estoppel principles.
It occurs when a person represents or allows others to believe that someone is his partner, even though they are not actually a partner.
If third parties rely on this representation, the person is liable to them as if they were a partner.
⚖️ This is covered under Section 27 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932.
Key Features
Representation by Conduct or Words:
A person may allow others to believe that someone is a partner.
The representation may be explicit (written/spoken) or implicit (behavioral/conduct).
Reliance by Third Parties:
Third parties must believe in the representation and act on it.
Liability:
The person making the representation becomes liable to third parties as if they were partners, even without actual consent.
No Actual Partnership Needed:
Liability arises regardless of whether a formal partnership exists.
Legal Provisions
Section 27, Indian Partnership Act, 1932:
“A person who represents, expressly or by conduct, that he is a partner in a firm or consents to being represented as a partner, is liable to third parties who have extended credit or entered into transactions with the firm relying on such representation, as if he were a partner.”
Illustration
A person allows his name to appear in firm’s letterhead without being a partner.
A creditor lends money to the firm believing he is a partner.
The person is liable to repay the creditor, even though he is not an actual partner.
Case Laws
1. Mercantile Credit v. Garrod (1962, UK case – applied in India)
Facts: A person allowed others to believe he was a partner.
Held: He was liable to third parties as if he were a partner, even without actual consent.
2. Re North Devon (1888)
Facts: A man’s name was used as a partner on firm’s documents without his knowledge.
Held: He was bound to third parties who acted in reliance on his name.
3. Lala Ram Kumar vs Gyan Chand (1969, Delhi HC)
Facts: A person allowed his name to appear in firm’s dealings.
Held: He was liable to creditors under Section 27, even though he had not contributed capital.
4. Mulliner & Co. v. Barclays Bank (1911, UK)
Facts: Representation of partnership led bank to extend credit.
Held: Liability arose due to holding out doctrine.
Essentials for Liability under Holding Out
| Essential | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Representation | Expressly or impliedly shown that someone is a partner |
| Reliance | Third party relies on the representation |
| Transaction | A transaction occurs due to such reliance |
| No actual partnership needed | Actual consent or capital contribution is irrelevant |
Summary Table
| Aspect | Details |
|---|---|
| Legal Provision | Section 27, Indian Partnership Act, 1932 |
| Basis | Estoppel – person cannot deny representation if third parties rely |
| Liability | As if he were a real partner |
| Key Cases | Mercantile Credit v. Garrod (1962), Re North Devon (1888), Lala Ram Kumar vs Gyan Chand (1969) |
✅ In short:
Doctrine of Holding Out protects third parties dealing with a firm in good faith.
Even a non-partner can be held liable if he represents or allows representation that he is a partner.
Ensures fairness and prevents fraud in business dealings.
RELATED Blog
0 comments