Karnataka High Court
Chandrashekar S/O Somashekarayya vs The Addl. Deputy Commissioner on 20 September, 2024
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:13452
WP No. 107963 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024
BEFORE R
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
WRIT PETITION NO. 107963 OF 2014 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN
CHANDRASHEKAR
S/O. SOMASHEKARAYYA SAMSTHANAMATH,
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: TRANSPORT BUSINESS,
R/O. NO.34, NAKSHATRA COLONY,
SHANTI NAGAR, KESHWAPUR, HUBLI.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. V.M. SHEELVANT, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE ADDL. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
DHARWAD DISTRICT, DHARWAD.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
OFFICE OF DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
K.G. ROAD, BANGALORE-560009.
SAROJA
HANGARAKI 3. THE SPECIAL TAHASILDAR,
BANGALORE NORTH TALUKA, (ADDITIONAL),
Location: HIGH
COURT OF YELANKHA SUB URBAN, BANGALORE.
KARANTAKA
DHARWAD
BENCH
4. REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER,
DHARWAD REGION, DHARWAD.
5. THE ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR,
ENQUIRIES-I, KARNATAKA LOKAYAKUTA,
M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE.
6. SMT. LAKSHMI BAI,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:13452
WP No. 107963 of 2014
WIFE OF LATE S. PRAKASH
7. SRI. PRADEEP KUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS,
SON OF LATE S. PRAKASH
8. SRI. UDAY KUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS,
SON OF LATE S. PRAKASH
R6, R7 AND R8 ARE R/O. 27/32, 1ST MAIN,
4TH CROSS, KOTTIGE PALYA, MAGADI MAIN ROAD,
BANGALORE-560091.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. PRAVEEN K. UPPAR, AGA FOR R1-R4;
SRI. ANIL KALE, ADV. FOR R5;
SRI. AKARSH KUMAR GOWDA, ADV. FOR R6 & R7;
R8-UDAY KUMAR P. PARTY IN PERSON (NOC OBTAIN))
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE
NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT,
ORDER OR DIRECTION AND QUASH THE LETTER/DIRECTION
BEARING NO. M.S.C./CR/(WORKMAN)/23/11-12 DT 3/2/2014
ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-C,
LETTER/DIRECTION BEARING NO.MSC/CR/WORKMAN/23/2011-12
DATED 25-04-2014 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT PRODUCED AT
ANNEXURE-E, LETTER/DIRECTION BEARING NO.
COMPT.,LOK.BCD.677/2014 DT 16/05/2014 ISSUED BY THE 5TH
RESPONDENT PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-H AND THE LETTER
/DIRECTION ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT BEARING NO. RRC(R-
12)CR/01/2014-15 DATE 2/6/2014 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-J;
ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER
APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION RESTRAINING THE
RESPONDENTS FOR RECOVERING THE AMOUNT OF COMPENSATION
AS ARREARS OF LAND REVENUE PURSUANT TO THE ORDER PASSED
BY THE COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMAN'S COMPENSATION
SUBDIVISION-6, BANGALORE IN WCA/F.C/CR/09/2008 PRODUCED
AT ANNEXURE-A & A1 AGAINST THE PROPERTIES OF THE
PETITIONER AND ETC.
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:13452
WP No. 107963 of 2014
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
ORDERS ON 05.09.2024, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF
ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
CAV ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH)
1. This writ petition is filed invoking Articles 226
and 227 of the Constitution of India praying this Court to
issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other
appropriate writ, order or direction and quash the
letter/direction bearing No.M.S.C./CR/(Workman)/23/11-
12 dated 03.02.2014 issued by the respondent No.2
produced at Annexure-C, letter/direction bearing
No.M.S.C./CR/Workman/23/2011-12 dated 25.04.2014
issued by respondent No.3 produced at Annexure-E,
letter/direction bearing No.Compt.Lok.BCD.677/2014
dated 16.05.2014 issued by the respondent No.5 produced
at Annexure-H and the letter /direction issued by the
respondent No.1 bearing No.RRC(R-12)/CR/01/2014-15
dated 02.06.2014 produced at Annexure-J and issue a writ
in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ,
order or direction restraining the respondents for
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:13452
WP No. 107963 of 2014
recovering the amount of compensation as arrears of land
revenue pursuant to the order passed by the
Commissioner for Workman's Compensation, Subdivision-
6, Bengaluru in WCA/F.C/CR/09/2008 produced at
Annexure-A & A1 against the properties of the petitioner
and grant such other reliefs as deemed fit in the
circumstances of the case.
2. While seeking the above relief, it is contended
that the wife and children of one Prakash filed a petition
seeking compensation on account of death of her husband
before the Workmen Commissioner for Compensation
against M/s. Ambika Transport Company at No.14/3 Shri
Madeshwar Buildding in between 4th and 5th Cross, 2nd
Main Raod, Kalasipalayam Extension, Bengaluru. The
Commissioner having considered the material, given an
opportunity to both sides and awarded compensation of
Rs.3,45,040/- with interest at 12% on 27.08.2008 as per
Annexure-A. the petitioner received recovery notice dated
06.06.2013 fo recovery of amount of compensation
-5-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:13452
WP No. 107963 of 2014
awarded as per Annexure-A. Immediately, the petitioner
herein has given representation on 10.07.2013 to the
Special Tahasildar, (North Additional) Taluka Yelahanka,
Bengaluru stating that he was not a party to the labour
case and he is not liable to pay the compensation on as
per Annexure-B. The recovery notice was issued to the
petitioner on the ground that the name of his business and
his brother are same. Respondent No.3 directed
respondent No.4 to seize the Lorries of the petitioner and
respondent No.5 also issued a direction to respondent
No.2 to seize the vehicles of the petitioner and recover the
compensation amount on 16.05.2014. Respondent No.1
addressed a letter to respondent No.4 to seize the vehicle
of the petitioner and recover the compensation amount
with interest on 02.06.2014 and documents of the same
are referred as Annexures-C to E and also letter addressed
to the Transport Commissioner by the Transport Officer is
produced as per Annexure-F.
-6-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:13452
WP No. 107963 of 2014
3. It is contended that the Ambika Transport
Company was the owner of the said vehicle and produced
copy of RC as Annexure-G. The petitioner also referred the
document at Annexure-H dated 16.05.2014. Additional
Registrar Enquiry, Karnataka Lokayukta Bengaluru
addressed a letter to the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru
Rural District. The letter addressed by the Deputy
Commissioner is in terms of Annexure-J to the Tahasildar
of the Dharwad. Annexures-K and L are the certificate of
registration.
4. Counsel for the petitioner would vehemently
contend that the award passed was against one Om
Kumar who is the brother of the petitioner who was
running transport business in the name of Ambika
Transport Company. Nowhere in the said petition or order
it is said that the deceased Prakash was working with the
petitioner and he is liable to the pay the compensation.
Thus, the directions of the respondents for attaching the
Lorries/properties of the petitioner are highly illegal and
-7-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:13452
WP No. 107963 of 2014
arbitrary. It is further contended that the petitioner and
other brothers of the petitioner are carrying on their
independent transport business in different parts of
Karnataka and there is no nexus between the brothers and
they are having their own establishment, offices, Lorries
and staff etc., The family of the petitioner is not Joint
Hindu Family and they have partitioned long back, their
business transactions are separately assessed for Income
Tax. It is also contended that in response to the letters
and directions of the respondents No.1 and 2, respondent
No.4 has replied that the vehicles cannot be attached as
the petitioner is no way connected to the order of the
Commissioner for Workman's Compensation. In spite of
that, directions are issued by the respondents which are
highly arbitrary and illegal.
5. It is further contended that the respondents
neither held an enquiry nor they have given an
opportunity to the petitioner before ordering attachment of
the Lorries of the petitioner and thus the letters and
-8-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:13452
WP No. 107963 of 2014
directions issued to respondent No.4 by other respondents
are unsustainable. The business of the brother of the
petitioner viz., Om Kumar is nothing to do with the
business of the petitioner, merely because similarity in the
business (firm) name, they are proceeding attach the
Lorries of the petitioner. The said Lorries have been
purchased by the petitioner in his name and his brothers
and further they are separately assessed for income tax
and they were separately doing the business, as such the
petitioner cannot be penalized for the liability of his
brother and thus the direction issued by the respondents
are liable to be quashed.
6. It is further contended that the Registrar of
Lokayukta has no jurisdiction to issue directions to
recover the amount by attaching the Lorries of the
petitioner and the same is illegal action which has resulted
in violation of infringement of fundamental right of
profession guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the
-9-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:13452
WP No. 107963 of 2014
Constitution of India. Hence, the present writ petition is
filed.
7. Counsel for the petitioner in his argument
vehemently contended that the very attachment of the
Lorry belonging to the petitioner is illegal. He further
contends that earlier there was a partnership and the
same was dissolved in 2002 itself and deed of dissolution
of the year 2002 and separate income tax filed by the
petitioner are also relied upon and the income tax filed is
not in the name of the firm. He also relied upon Annexure-
Q which clearly disclose that the brother of the petitioner
Om Kumar also filed income tax in his individual name and
this petitioner is no way concerned with the vehicle which
was attached and he had deposited the amount before this
Court as directed by this Court and hence the amount in
deposit is also to be refunded to the petitioner.
8. This writ petition is opposed by respondents
No.6 to 8 who are the claimants before the Commissioner
contending that the petitioner has not deposited Gratuity
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:13452
WP No. 107963 of 2014
amount which the Assistant Commissioner of Labour,
Gratuity Payment Controlling Authority, Bengaluru has
passed an order on 13.03.2012 awarding gratuity of
Rs.60,000/- payable to the respondents from 10.12.2007
and should be deposited within 30 days, failing which from
11.01.2008, the petitioner is liable to pay interest at the
rate of 10% p.a. The petitioner has not deposited the said
amount with interest. Order copy is also produced as
Annexure-R2 and award as Annexure-R1.
9. It is also contended that the deceased was
working at Bengaluru Branch and Head Office is located at
Hubballi and extract of payment of salary statement is
produced as Annexure-R3. It is also contended that the
claim petition is filed against M/s. Ambika Transport
Company and the petitioner was carrying his business in
the name and style of Ambika Transport Company and
later he changed as ATC Logistics. This clearly would go to
show that the petitioner by changing the name of
transport company is trying to mislead the respondents to
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:13452
WP No. 107963 of 2014
pay compensation. The same is also reflected in the copy
of bill of the company produced as Annexure-R4. It is also
contended that the that the petitioner and his brothers are
running the Transport business in different places
including at Bengaluru under the name and style of
Ambika Transport Company which is reflected from the
endorsement issued by RTO Dharwad and the said
endorsement is produced as Annexure-R5. It is also
contended that in order to show that Ambika Transport
Company is a joint owner company which is run by the
petitioner and his brothers and the petitioner was paying
the salary to the deceased and the same is confirmed by
the petitioner which is reflecting in the objection statement
filed by the brother of the petitioner and the same is also
produced as Annexure-R6. It is contended that the
petitioner is doing the transport business at Bengaluru and
the said Ambika Transport company is now situated at
83/6, 1 Main road, Near S.J.P. Police Station Kalasipalya,
Bengaluru - 560 002 which is evident from photographs
produced at Annexure-R7 and also a copy of the Mahazar
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:13452
WP No. 107963 of 2014
dated 17.09.2014 made and submitted as per the copy of
the same is produced at Annexure-R8.
10. It is contended that the very contention taken
by the petitioner is against the material on record and
when the matter was dragged, parawise statement was
also furnished and the same is also produced as
Annexure-R9 and hence the petition cannot be allowed.
11. The respondents' counsel in support of his
argument, relies upon the judgment of Gujarat High Court
in the case of Bharat Suryodaya Mills Company
Limited vs. Mohatta Bros. reported in 1969 0 AIR
(Guj) 178, wherein it is discussed with regard to Section
69 of the Act regarding reconstitution/addition of a new
partner and also discussed with regard to Section 32 of
the Act which speaks about retirement of a partner and
also Section 63 with regard to notifying the changes in the
constitution of firm or as regards its dissolution.
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:13452
WP No. 107963 of 2014
12. In response to the statement of objections filed
by respondents, the petitioner has also filed rejoinder to
the statement of objections and relies upon the challenge
made with regard to the alleged gratuity amount in
W.P.No.52983/2014 and granting of interim stay as
Annexure-M and also relied upon deed of dissolution which
was reduced into writing and the same is produced as
Annexure-N along with rejoinder statement and also
produced copy of income tax returns for the period from
2003 to 2012 as Annexures-P1 to P4 and business of
petitioner is ATC Logistics and income tax of Om Kumar
for the year 2002 to 2007 are also produced as Annexure-
Q1 to Q4 and hence contends that the petitioner is not
liable to pay any compensation.
13. Counsel for the respondents/claimants in his
argument vehemently contends that admittedly, the
partnership was started in 1994 and the same was
registered and though claims that partnership was
dissolved and the same is not in accordance with law and
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:13452
WP No. 107963 of 2014
the said dissolution inter se between the parties and
created the document only to defeat the claim of
respondents. He also contends that even if the partnership
is dissolved and not complied the proviso under the
Partnership Act, 1932 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'
for brevity) for dissolving the partnership and not
produced any material and also when the Court directed to
furnish the details of provident fund account in 2017 and
employees list, the same are not produced and contends
that the company is not dissolved.
14. He also brought to notice of this Court Sections
32, 45, 69 and 72 of the Act contending that these
provisions are very clear that where a partner of a
partnership retires, public notice has to be given. He also
brought to notice of this Court the liability for acts of
partners done after dissolution and contends that in case
of recording of changes in dissolution of a firm, notice to
the Registrar has to be given. He also brought to notice of
this Court Section 59 of the Act with regard to registration
- 15 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:13452
WP No. 107963 of 2014
and contends that if the Registrar is satisfied that the
provisions of Section 58 are duly complied with, he shall
record an entry of the statement in a register called the
Register of Firms and shall file the statement.
15. Counsel referring to these provisions, contends
that when there is no any change of constitution of
partnership, the petitioner is liable to pay the
compensation. In support of his argument, he has
produced documents i.e. memo of notices given to the
concerned. He has also produced memo of document
issued by the employee provident fund wherein iti s
mentioned that Ambika Transport which was registered in
1992 and the particulars of owners are still continued and
this petitioner is 5th partner along with his brother and no
changes are made in the Register of Firms. He has also
relied upon RTI given to the Regional Provident Fund
Commissioner and the details given by employees
provident fund organization stating that amendment
details are not available. He also produced employees
- 16 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:13452
WP No. 107963 of 2014
provident fund organization letter dated 30.03.2016,
wherein it is mentioned that since the service is more than
10 years of service, hence eligible for pension. Along with
the memo dated 23.03.2022, he relied upon partnership
deed and also reply given by the Registrar Office stating
that there is no changes in the partnership and also
endorsement regarding no any amendments of company
with regard to partnership or dissolution and hence the
very contention of the petitioner cannot be accepted in
view of there is no dissolution and also letter dated
07.10.2016 is clear that till 2016 also partnership is not
dissolved and no such any entries. Hence, the petitioner
cannot contend that the petitioner is not liable since his
name has been continued in the partnership firm of
Ambika Transport Company.
16. Having heard respective counsels and taking
note of the grounds urged in the petition as well as
statement of objections and rejoinder, the following point
would arise for consideration of this Court
- 17 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:13452
WP No. 107963 of 2014
i. Whether this Court can grant the relief as
sought by quashing Annexures-C, E, H
and J as sought in the writ petition?
17. On perusal of the material on record, there is
no dispute with regard to the fact that the husband and
father of respondents No.6 to 8 was working in Ambika
Transport Company and his name has been entered in the
employees provident fund scheme and the establishment
of M/s. Ambika Transport Company is clear in the said
document and the claim is also against Ambika Transport
Company and the provident fund scheme was registered
by the said Ambika Transport Company and the
partnership details are also given, which includes the
name of this petitioner as one of the partner along with his
brother Om Kumar and others are partners and also
details are given that no changes in the said PF
registration and partnership is not dissolved as contended
by the petitioner and letter dated 07.03.2017 issued by
the EPF organization that amendment details are not
- 18 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:13452
WP No. 107963 of 2014
available and apart from that letter dated 30.03.2016 is
relied upon , wherein it is clear that since the service is
more than ten years of service, hence eligible for pension.
Apart from that partnership deed is also produced along
with the memo and from the letter of Registrar dated
07.10.2016 it is confirmed that there is no changes in the
partnership.
18. This Court has to take note that the accident is
of the year 2007 and as on the date of accident there was
no any changes. The letter of the Registrar dated
07.10.2016 is very clear that partnership was registered
on 04.04.1994 and registration number is 4/1994-95 and
there is no any changes. When such being the case, it is
clear that partnership continued and no doubt dissolution
document is relied upon by the petitioner stating that
dissolution was made in the year 2002 itself. But, it is also
important to note that when the dissolution has taken
place, the same has to be communicated to the Registrar
- 19 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:13452
WP No. 107963 of 2014
and no such material is placed before the Court regarding
communicating the same to the Registrar.
19. In this context, this Court would like to rely
upon Sections 32, 45, 59 and 63 which read as under:
"32. Retirement of a partner.- (1) A partner may
retire,-
(a) with the consent of all the other partners,
(b) in accordance with an express agreement by
the partners, or
(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 the firm if done before
the retirement, until public notice is given of the
retirement:
Provided that a retired partner is not liable to any
third party who deals with the firm without knowing that
he was a partner.
(4) Notices under sub-section (3) may be given by
the retired partner or by any partner of the
reconstituted firm."
- 20 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:13452
WP No. 107963 of 2014
"45. Liability for acts of partners done after dissolution.--
(1) Notwithstanding the dissolution of a firm, the
partners continue to be liable as such to third parties for
any act done by any of them which would have been an
act of the firm if done before the dissolution, until public
notice is given of the dissolution:
Provided that the estate of a partner who dies, or
who is adjudicated an insolvent, or of a partner who, not
having been known to the person dealing with the firm
to be a partner, retires from the firm, is not liable under
this section for acts done after the date on which he
ceases to be a partner.
(2)Notices under sub-section (1) may be given by
any partner."
"59. Registration.-- When the Registrar is satisfied
that the provisions of section 58 have been duly complied with,
he shall record an entry of the statement in a register called
the Register of Firms, and shall file the statement."
"63. Recording of changes in and dissolution of
a firm.-- (1)When a change occurs in the constitution of
a registered firm any incoming, continuing or outgoing
partner, and when a registered firm is dissolved any
person who was a partner immediately before the
dissolution, or the agent of any such partner or person
specially authorised in this behalf, may give notice to
the Registrar of such change or dissolution, specifying
the date thereof; and the Registrar shall make a record
of the notice in the entry relating to the firm in the
Register of Firms, and shall file the notice along with the
statement relating to the firm filed under section 59.
Recording of withdrawal of a minor.--(2) When
a minor who has been admitted to the benefits of
partnership in a firm attains majority and elects to
become or not to become a partner, and the firm is then
a registered firm, he, or his agent specially authorised in
this behalf, may give notice to the Registrar that he has
or has not become a partner, and the Registrar shall
- 21 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:13452
WP No. 107963 of 2014
deal with the notice in the manner provided in sub-
section (1)."
20. Having considered the material on record and
the aforesaid provisions, Sub-clause (3) of Section 32 of
the Act is clear that if a person retires from the
partnership or if there is any dissolution in the firm,
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 the firm if done before the retirement,
until public notice is given of the retirement Provided that
a retired partner is not liable to any third party who deals
with the firm without knowing that he was a party. Section
45 of the Act is also very clear that notwithstanding the
dissolution of a firm, the partners continue to be liable as
such to third parties for any act done by any of them
which would have been an act of the firm, if done before
the dissolution, until public notice is given of the
dissolution.
- 22 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:13452
WP No. 107963 of 2014
21. Both Sections 32 and 45 of the Act say with
regard to giving of public notice and in the case on hand
no such public notice is placed before the Court except
producing the dissolution deed.
22. Section 63 of the Act is also clear regarding
recording of changes in and dissolution of a firm, which
says that when a change occurs in the constitution of a
registered firm, every incoming, continuing or outgoing
partner, and when a registered firm is dissolved, every
person who was a partner immediately before the
dissolution, or the agent of every such partner or person
specially authorised in this behalf shall, within a period of
90 days from the date of such change or dissolution, given
notice to the Registrar of such change or dissolution,
specifying the date thereof; and the Registrar shall a
record of the notice in the entry relating to the firm in the
Registrar of Firms and shall file the notice along with
statement relating to the firm filed under section 59.
- 23 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:13452
WP No. 107963 of 2014
23. Having read Section 63 of the Act, it is also
very clear that notice has to be given to Registrar of such
change or dissolution and in the case on hand nothing is
placed on record for having given such notice to the
Registrar for changes of partnership firm. When there is
non-compliance of the above provisions, the contention of
the petitioner cannot be accepted. The judgment relied
upon by the respondents' counsel also aptly applicable to
the case on hand since discussion was made to Sections
32, 45 and 59 of the Partnership Act.
24. This Court would like to rely upon the judgment
of this Court reported in Kar.L.J. page 383 in the case of
Manjunatha Nayak H. vs. Ullal Dayananda
Hanumantha Nayak by LRs., wherein also discussed the
proviso under the Partnership Act, 1932 i.e. Sections 32
and 45 regarding dissolution of firm and particularly
discussed with regard to the notice to old customers. It is
held that public notice is not the only mode of notifying
dissolution, though public notice is one of them and no
- 24 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:13452
WP No. 107963 of 2014
such public notice is given for dissolution in the case on
hand and apart from that this Court already held that no
communication was given to the Registrar of Firms with
regard to the dissolution and hence this judgment is also
applicable to the case on hand.
25. This Court would also like to rely upon the
judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Syndicate
Bank vs. R.S.R. Engineering Works and Others
reported in (2003) 6 SCC 265, wherein also discussed
with regard to Sections 32(3) and 72 of Partnership Act,
1932 and held that liability of retiring partner can be
discharged by an agreement between the retiring partner,
third party and partners of reconstituted firm and such an
agreement can also be implied from the course of dealing
between the third party and the reconstituted firm after
retirement of a partner. In the absence of such an
agreement, express or implied, held, public notice is
necessary. Even it is held that liability of a retiring partner
against third party and in the absence of agreement
- 25 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:13452
WP No. 107963 of 2014
discharging the retiring partners, held, they would remain
liable towards their pre-retirement liability.
26. In the case on hand also, there is no any such
agreement and apart from that respondents/claimants are
the third parties and when the deceased was working in
the very same partnership firm and the dissolution relied
upon by the petitioner is not communicated to the District
Registrar, in accordance with law and in respect of third
party is concerned even if assuming that there was
dissolution, all the partners are bound by the same and in
the case on hand also, there is no any such agreement,
express or implied and also Apex Court held that public
notice is necessary and in the case on hand, regarding
dissolution also, no such public notice is given.
27. Admittedly, the partnership was registered and
the petitioner is also a partner of the said firm is not in
dispute. It is also not in dispute that the only contention of
the petitioner is that the partnership was dissolved in 2002
itself. But except producing the dissolution deed and
- 26 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:13452
WP No. 107963 of 2014
individual filing of income tax, no documents are produced
and there is no changes in the PF records as well as in the
Registrar of Firm. When such being the case, the very
contention of the petitioner that he is not liable to make
payment cannot be accepted and once the partnership is
registered, the same has to be dissolved in accordance
with law and no changes in the records maintained by the
Registrar and cannot escape from the liability unless the
same is dissolved in accordance with law.
28. Having considered the aforesaid provisions and
when the firm was not dissolved in accordance with law by
giving public notice or making such entries in the Registrar
of Firm and no such entries are found in the records
maintained by the Registrar of Firm, the contention of the
petitioner that he is no way concerned with the
partnership firm and the partnership firm dissolved in the
year 2002 itself cannot be accepted.
29. The respondents' counsel relies upon the
Employees Provident Fund Scheme, 1952 and there was
- 27 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:13452
WP No. 107963 of 2014
no any changes of amendment with regard to the said firm
and the amendment details are also not available in terms
of letter dated 07.03.2017 and there is no changes in
partnership vide letter dated 07.10.2016 when the
information was sought. Under these circumstances, the
petitioner cannot seek any relief invoking Articles 226 and
227 of the Constitution of India. Hence, there is no merit
in the writ petition to grant the reliefs as sought for.
30. In view of the discussions made above, I pass
the following:
ORDER
The writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
(H.P. SANDESH) JUDGE Sh CT-MCK List No.: 4 Sl No.: 1