Lender of money filed suit against partnership firm and its partners for recovery of money - Two partners contended that they had retired - retiring partner continues to be liable until public notice is given of his retirement.

Citation

2005 (3) CTC 497 (Mad)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS

S. Ashok Kumar, J.Civil Suit No. 373 of 2001.June 18, 2005

Harihar Davey                                        ...Plaintiff

...Vs...

Kamlesh Steel Enterprises, A Partnership Firm, Rep. by Its Partner, Jaya D. Davey, No.2, Philips Street, Chennai-1 and Others                                                                    ...Defendant

Partnership Act, 1932, Sections 19,22,25 & 72 Tamil Nadu Partnership (Registration of Firms) Rules, 1951, Rules 61,62 & 63-Retirement of partner and liability of partners after retirement Lender of money filed suit against partnership firm and its partners for recovery of money together with interest due Two partners resisted claim on ground that firm had been dissolved and such partners retired from firm with effect from specific date and on other grounds Two partners contended that they had retired with effect from 1.4.1998-Firm borrowed major amounts prior to such retirement and also borrowed after such retirement Retired partners pleaded ignorance of borrowing by firm after their retirement Acts of one partner of firm binds other partners Section 72 of Partnership Act, 1932, contemplates effecting of public notice in officials gazette and in atleast one vernacular Newspaper circulating in District where such firm has its principle place of business Section 32(3), Partnership Act, postulates that retiring partner continues to be liable until public notice is given of his retirement Rule 4 of Tamil Nadu Partnership (Registration of Firms) Rules deals with form of intimation and notices Form No. V should be filed for giving notice of change in constitution of firm Partners retiring but omitting give such notice continue to be liable for debts incurred by firm even after retirement Defendants claiming immunity on account of retirement could not succeed on account of failure to give such notice On facts also retirement was not established Suit decreed. [Paras 8,11,12,13 & 14]