Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4.1 In the written statement of defendant no.2, it is averred that the present suit has been erroneously filed by the plaintiff against the defendants for recovery of an amount of Rs. 6,44,980/-. The defendant no.2 is the sleeping partner of the firm and that no specific liability accrues against her as sleeping partner is not liable for any day-to-day affairs of the firm.

4.2 It is averred that the present plaint lacks any cause of action, as the defendant is the sleeping partner and she has neither availed any loan in her personal capacity nor has any knowledge of day-to- day affairs of the company nor of whether any loan has been taken or not, as she has been made partner just for name sake being the elder lady in the family.

4.4 It is further submitted that defendant no.2 does not have any joint or several liability. The defendant no.2 is a sleeping partner of the firm and is not aware of day-to-day affairs of the firm and has no knowledge of any transaction between defendant no. 1 and plaintiff.

REPLICATION:

5. The Plaintiff filed replication to the written statement thereby denying all the contents of the written statement and reiterating and reaffirming the pleadings made in the plaint. Apart from the averments made in the plaint, plaintiff through the said replication has also averred that the objections of the defendant no.2 is vague and baseless and without any merits and material particulars. It is stated that defendant no.2 has dealt with the plaintiff for the transaction in dispute, therefore, it does not lie in the mouth to say that defendant No.2 is a sleeping partner of the firm. It is stated that the defendant No.2 be put to strict proof of the same. It is stated that every partner of the partnership firm are jointly and severally liable. Therefore, the defendant No.2 is still liable to repay the loan taken by the defendant No.1 firm. It is stated that the loan transaction was entered by the plaintiff with the defendant No.2; loan amount was transferred to the account of the defendant No.1 firm at the instance of the defendant No.2; and the defendant No.2 is an active partner of the firm. It is, thus, stated that the objections of defendant no.2 that she is not a necessary party to the suit or that Sh. Sandeep Chhatwal is necessary and proper party to the present proceedings are misconceived, meritless and liable to be rejected.

FINAL ARGUMENTS

9. Final arguments were heard as advanced by Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff and counsel for defendant no.2.

ISSUEWISE FINDINGS Issue No.1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover an amount of Rs.6,44,980/- from the defendants, who are jointly and severally liable to pay the same, as prayed for? OPP

10. The onus to prove the issue was upon the plaintiff.

10.1 To decide the present issue, the first question to be decided is whether defendant no.2 is the partner of defendant no.1 firm. Plaintiff has alleged that loan of Rs.5 Lacs was given to the defendant no.1 firm at the behest of defendant no.2 who is a partner in the defendant no.1 firm. In the written statement and in the evidence affidavit Ex. D2W-1/A, defendant no.2 has stated and deposed that she is a sleeping partner in the defendant no.1 firm and is unaware of the day to day activities happening in the firm and that she was made the partner just for the name sake being elder lady in the family. In cross-examination, defendant no.2 has deposed that she and her sons namely Brijesh Chhatwal and Sandeep Chhatwal are the partners of defendant no.1 firm. She has also deposed that she cannot show any document in the Court file that she was a sleeping partner of the defendant no.1 firm. Thus, there is a categorical admission of defendant no.2 that she is a partner in the defendant no.1 firm.

"25. Liability of a partner for acts of the firm.- Every partner is liable , jointly with all the other partners and also severally, for all acts of the firm done while he is a partner."

10.5 From the aforesaid provision, it is clear that the a partner is jointly and severally liable for any act of the firm done while he is a partner. In the present case, it stands proved that defendant no.2 is a partner of the defendant no.1 firm and therefore, she is jointly and severally liable with all other partners of all acts of the firm done while she is the partner. It is not the case of defendant no.2 that she has retired from defendant no.1 firm and therefore, no concession in the liability of defendant no.2 can be given simply on the ground that she is a sleeping partner.