Son not liable for partnership debts; arrest order quashed. Legal basis lacking; clear evidence needed.

The court held that a son cannot be arrested for the debts of a dissolved partnership firm unless specifically authorized by law. Emphasizing that liability rests with the partnership, the court quashed the order for the son's arrest, criticizing the lack of legal basis for the decision. Dismissing the argument based on the son signing a return, the court stressed the need for clear evidence of partnership. The writ petition was allowed, preventing the son's arrest and clarifying the importance of legal justification in recovery proceedings involving non-partners.

---

---

Issues:
1. Liability of a son for the debts of a dissolved partnership firm.
2. Validity of an order for the arrest of a son in recovery proceedings.
3. Interpretation of statutory provisions regarding recovery of debts.

Analysis:
The judgment involves a dispute regarding the liability of a son for the debts of a dissolved partnership firm. The partnership firm, registered under the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, was dissolved in 1962. The Assessing Authority issued an order of assessment for sales tax arrears against the firm, creating a demand for payment. The petitioner, son of one of the partners, contested his liability for the debt, claiming that he was only a student at the time of dissolution and had no connection with the firm. The Assistant Collector ordered the petitioner's arrest for non-payment, leading to the petitioner filing a writ petition to quash the order.

The court analyzed the legal position and held that the liability being that of the partnership firm, no individual who was not a partner could be arrested for the firm's debts without statutory authorization. The court referred to a previous Division Bench judgment to support this position, emphasizing that recovery proceedings should not extend to individuals not directly liable. The court criticized the Assistant Collector for not considering the legalities before ordering the petitioner's arrest, highlighting the lack of proper adjudication on the petitioner's objections.

The respondent argued that the petitioner had signed a return of the firm, implying his partnership. However, the court dismissed this argument, noting that signing a return did not automatically establish partnership liability. The court also questioned the lack of evidence to support the claim that the petitioner was a partner, emphasizing the importance of clear proof in such matters.

In conclusion, the court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the order for the petitioner's arrest and restraining the respondent from arresting the petitioner for debts of the firm he was not a partner of. The judgment clarified the legal principles governing recovery proceedings and highlighted the necessity of proper legal reasoning before depriving individuals of their liberty in such cases.

---