TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2007 (4) TMI 771
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vision, are as follows: The respondent herein has filed the suit in O.S. No. 1892 of 2002 against one M/s. T. Madhava Rao and Company represented by its 3 partners including the petitioner herein and obtained a money decree. The petitioner herein has been arrayed as 3rd defendant in the said suit. The suit was decreed on 30.12.2002. Thereafter, the respondent has filed the execution petition in E.P. No. 1892 of 2004 against the above referred firm and its partners including the petitioner herein. In the said execution petition, the petitioner filed an application in E.A. No. 1050 of 2005 in E.P. No. 1892 of 2004 under Section 47 C.P.C. to dismiss the execution petition filed by the respondent herein. The said applicati....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d hence, the suit that has been instituted by the respondent against the firm and the petitioner is perfectly valid. (b) As per Section 32(3) of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 (hereinafter called "the Act"), the partners continue to be liable to third parties if any act done by them prior to their retirement. (c) The petitioner has not given any notice as contemplated under Section 72 of the said Act and hence, the plea of the petitioner that he has retired from the firm and he is not liable to pay any amount to the respondent after his retirement on 1.8.2001 cannot be accepted. 5. I have heard that the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the respondent. 6. It is an admitted c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nbsp; (c) where the partnership is at will, by giving notice in writing to all the other partners of his intention to retire. (2) A retiring partner may be discharged from any liability to any third party for acts of the firm done before his retirement by an agreement made by him with such third party and the partners of the reconstituted firm, and such agreement may be implied by a course of dealing between such third party and the reconstituted firm after he had knowledge of the retirement. (3) Notwithstanding the retirement of a partner from a firm, he and the partners continue to be liable as partners to third parties for any act done by any of them which would have been an act of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... sent to the respondent. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the respondent was intimated about his retirement under Ex.P-5. Ex.P-6 will show that it has been sent to the respondent. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondent contended that Ex.P-5 was not at all sent to the respondent and Ex.P-6 certificate of posting sheet will not establish that it has been served on the respondent. Before going into the aspect whether the letter sent by the petitioner through certificate of posting to the respondent can be construed as proper notice or not, it has to be seen whether sending of such notice is sufficient or not. 9. In this connection, it will be useful to refer to Section 72 of the said Act which deals ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to the retirement or expulsion of the partner, etc. 11. Now, when we look at the present case, admittedly, the petitioner did not produce any document to show that he had sent a notice to the registrar of firms and he has made publication in the official gazette. Hence, it can be safely concluded that the petitioner has not followed the mode of public notice as contemplated under Section 72 of the Act. Section 72 does not contemplate notice only to the Registrar of Firms or publication in the official gazette or in one vernacular newspaper. The said Section makes it very clear that all the modes referred to above have to be followed when it relates to the retirement or expulsion of partner, etc. Since the petitioner has not followed two ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....se factors seems to have weighed in the mind of the learned Trial Judge while dismissing the application filed by the petitioner under Section 47 C.P.C. 13. In short, I am constrained to hold that: (a) The cause of action arose on 12.11.1998, 14.1.2000, 20.11.2000 and 30.3.2001, much prior to the petitioner's retirement from the partnership firm on 1.8.2001. (b) The petitioner's retirement notice to the respondent even if it is taken that it has been sent and even if it has been taken that the certificate of posting is a proper mode, the said notice is dated 31.8.2001 which is subsequent to the cause of action for the suit. (c) The petitioner could be said to be di....