https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=301087 A retired partner remained liable to an existing creditor on a promissory note executed after dissolution where the creditor had received no notice of dissolution, despite public notice being given. Section 264 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 was held not to displace the settled rule of commercial law by implication, because its negative wording did not clearly express an intention to alter existing liability. The Contract Act was treated as not being a complete code, and the partnership provisions were not read as exhaustive of all partnership questions. The settled construction and commercial practice were therefore preferred, leaving the retired partner liable. en-us Thu, 28 Feb 1929 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 11 Mar 2022 16:00:22 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=301087 A retired partner remained liable to an existing creditor on a promissory note executed after dissolution where the creditor had received no notice of dissolution, despite public notice being given. Section 264 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 was held not to displace the settled rule of commercial law by implication, because its negative wording did not clearly express an intention to alter existing liability. The Contract Act was treated as not being a complete code, and the partnership provisions were not read as exhaustive of all partnership questions. The settled construction and commercial practice were therefore preferred, leaving the retired partner liable. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 28 Feb 1929 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=301087