Lawfully yours: By Retd Justice K Chandru

No liability can be fixed on partners who have resigned from an LLP

A friend of mine lured me into a partnership to float an LLP (Limited Liability Partnership) in which I am one of the Designated Partners. A few months after getting it registered with the Registrar of Companies, differences cropped up among us as my friend, the CEO, was trying to amass capital with unrealistic plans. Since she has cut off ties with me, I have not given my promised investment. We had entered into a deal with the management of a temple for land, for which I am also a signatory. Now, I learn though she has roped in some other partners, no work has commenced. If the temple management files a case against non-receipt of monthly rent, won’t I too be in trouble? What can I do in this context?

— Poonguzhali, Tiruvallur

Since it is a Limited Liability Partnership, if there is any due from the firm’s side, proceedings can be initiated against individual partners also. If you resign from the partnership, from then onwards no liability can be fixed on you. For the past liabilities, you will be responsible only to the extent of your share.

Can’t allow poisonous games and then start regulating them

Confusion still prevails over the law to check the growing addiction to online gaming. The World Health Organisation recognises gaming addiction as a mental health condition. Our kids are the most affected. With physical and mental symptoms of the vice well recorded, is a prohibition or restrictive approach the answer for this? Shouldn’t counselling and rehabilitation be the cornerstone of any state policy in such matters?

-- Hari Hareswar, Mahabalipuram

You cannot allow poisonous games and then start regulating them. You know how regulatory bodies work in this country. The legislature in its wisdom decided to prohibit online rummy. Then under what powers the Governor is sitting over and not giving assent to the Bill? He must respect the wisdom of the legislature and allow the law to operate.

Many times deterrence is better than restrictive play. Leave it to the courts to decide its legality.