Distinctions Between a Company and a Partnership

A company acts as a distinct legal person, separate from its members. In contrast, a partnership does not have a separate legal identity from its partners.

2. Property Ownership: Company Property vs. Partnership Property

In a partnership, the property belongs to the individual partners. However, in a company, the property belongs to the company itself, not to its shareholders.

3. Mode of Creation: How Companies and Partnerships Form

A company comes into existence only after registration under the Companies Act, 1956. On the other hand, a partnership does not require registration to be formed.

4. Agency Relationships: Partners as Agents vs. Company Members

Partners serve as agents of the partnership, while members of a company do not act as agents for the company.

5. Contracts: Partner Agreements vs. Company Contracts

A partner cannot enter into a contract with the partnership firm itself. Conversely, a member of a company can contract with the company.

6. Transferability of Shares: Company Shares vs. Partnership Interests

A partner cannot transfer their share and make the transferee a partner without the consent of other partners. In contrast, shares in a company can transfer easily unless restricted by the Articles of Association.

7. Liability: Unlimited Liability in Partnerships vs. Limited Liability in Companies

Partners generally have unlimited liability, while shareholders enjoy limited liability, either by shares or guarantees. However, the Limited Liability Partnership Act allows for limited liability in partnerships.

8. Perpetual Succession: Company Longevity vs. Partnership Dissolution

The death or insolvency of a shareholder does not impact the company’s existence. In contrast, the death or insolvency of a partner typically leads to the dissolution of the partnership unless otherwise agreed.

9. Audit Requirements: Company Audits vs. Partnership Audits

Companies must have their accounts audited annually by a chartered accountant. In partnerships, auditing occurs at the discretion of the partners, although firms must conduct a tax audit if their turnover exceeds ₹1 crore.

10. Number of Members: Company and Partnership Membership

A partnership requires a minimum of 2 partners and a maximum of 20 (10 for banking). For a private company, the minimum is 2 and the maximum is 50. Public companies require at least 7 members, with no upper limit. As per the Companies Act 2013, one person can now also form a company.

11. Dissolution: Ending a Company vs. Ending a Partnership

A company can only dissolve according to legal procedures, while partners can dissolve a partnership at any time through mutual agreement.


Company Law Notes: Incorporation, Capital, Directors, and More

Join Our WhatsApp Channel for Opportunity Updates

Get Daily Updates

Join our Telegram Channel for Opportunity Updates

Get Daily Updates

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Next Article

Supreme Court reaffirms the Panchsheel Test for circumstantial evidence

The Supreme Court has reaffirmed the Panchsheel Test for establishing circumstantial evidence in Shail Kumari vs The State Of Chhattisgarh delivered on 6 August 2025. A bench of Justices B.R. Gavai and K. Vinod Chandran allowed the present appeal and found the Trial Court’s decision based on conjectures and surmises.

The appellant was alleged to have drowned her two children as per circumstantial evidence. The Court referred to the ratio in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra wherein the five tests for proof of circumstantial evidence was put forward: (1) the accused must be proven guilty and not on conjectures, (2) established facts must be consistent with guilt of the accused, (3) the evidence needs to be of conclusive nature, (4) all other possible hypothesis needs to be removed from speculation and lastly, (5) the chain of evidence must not carry reasonable doubts. 

This is a precedence in appellate reversal of lifetime imprisonment conviction on account of insufficient evidence. The bench found no link between the appellant and the crime in question and the testimony to be highly unreliable and hearsay evidence. The three kinds of witness classification in the case of Vadivelu Thevar was referred to:(i) wholly reliable, (ii) wholly unreliable, and (iii) neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable. 

The law laid down in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda requires the prosecution to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt to demonstrate a chain of circumstances that is so inextricably connected to exclude all other possible deviations from the truth alleged. The Court found no such connections in the present appeal. Therefore, the impugned judgement by the Trial Court dated 18th June 2004 was quashed and set aside.

Join Our WhatsApp Channel for Opportunity Updates

Get Daily Updates

Join our Telegram Channel for Opportunity Updates

Get Daily Updates

Next Article

Contact Us

For Submitting a Post

contact@lawdrishti.com

For Banner ads & admission campaigns

advertise@lawdrishti.com

Timing

Hours: 9 AM – 9 PM (Mon-Sat)

See the below animation to allow notifications.

Start getting Lawdrishti updates useful for you!

Contact Us

For Submitting a Post

For Banner ads & admission campaigns

Contact us
For Submitting a Post
For Banner ads & admission campaigns
Timing

Hours: 9 AM – 9 PM (Mon-Sat)