Mr. Justice R.N. Mittal, President— This appeal has been filed by Shri Narender Kumar on opposite party, against the order of the District Forum No. 1 dated 14th November, 1991 by which the opposite parties were directed to pay an amount of Rs. 7,500/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. w.e.f. 21st Feb., 1988 till the date of payment alongwith Rs. 1,000/- as costs.

2. 2.Briefly the facts are that Sh. Bhim Raj Gupta Complainant deposited an amount of Rs. 10,000/- with M/s. Jagmohan Lai Pawan Kumar (hereinafter referred to as the firm) on interest @ 18% p.a. payable quarterly, on 22.8.87. It is alleged that an amount of Rs. 2,500/- was paid by the firm on 8th August, 1988 and a receipt dated 8th August, 1988 was issued by it to the Complainant.

3. 3.Shri Narender Kumar, Jagmohan Lal, and Pawan Kumar opposite parties are the partners of the firm. Thus, an amount of Rs. 7,500/- alongwith interest was payable by them. Consequently, the Complainant prayed that the opposite parties be directed to pay an amount of Rs. 7,500/- with interest @ 18% p.a. to him.

4. 4.The complaint was contested by the Complainant Sh. Narender Kumar, who inter-alia pleaded that the amount of Rs. 10,000/- was taken by the Firm without his knowledge. In the partnership deed dated 12th April, 1986 it was provided that the other partners would not be entitled to raise any loan without his knowledge.

5. 5.It is further pleaded that the partnership was dissolved vide dissolution deed w.e.f. 31st March, 1988 and all the assets and liabilities of the Firm were taken over by Jagmohan Lal and Pawan Kumar-partners. This fact was known to the Complainant when he entered into new agreement with the Firm on 8th August, 1988. Consequently, he was not entitled to recover any amount from him.

6. It is next pleaded that the Complainant— entered into fresh agreement with Jagmohan Lal and Pawan Kumar after dissolution of the partnership and he agreed to accept Rs. 5,000/- only in settlement of his claim. Out of that amount Rs. 2,500/- was paid on 8th August, 1988 and the balance of Rs. 2,500/- was due from them. Consequently, Rs. 2,500/- was payable to the complainant by Jagmohan Lal and Pawan Kumar partners only.

7. The learned District Forum passed a decree for the recovery of Rs. 7,500/-with interest as stated above. Shri Narender Kumar has come up in appeal against the said order to this Commission.

8. The first contention of the learned Counsel for the Complainant is that according to the terms of the partnership deed Jagmohan Lai and Pawan Kumar were not entitled to raise any loan on behalf of the firm without the consent of the Complainant. The present loan was taken without his consent and therefore, he is not bound to pay the amount.

9. We have dully considered the arguments but regret our inability to accept it. Section 19 of the Partnership Act relates to implied authority of the partners. It does not prohibit the partners to accept deposits in the firm. It has not been shown that the aforesaid term was brought to the notice of the Complainant. Therefore, we reject the submission of the learned Counsel.

10. The next contention of the learned Counsel for the Complainant is that the Complainant retired from the partnership before 8th August, 1988 and after his retirement a fresh contract was entered into by the complainant with the firm. Consequently, he is not liable to pay the amount. We have duly considered the argument but do not find any substance therein as well. Section 32(3) of the Partnership Act, provides that inspite of retirement of a partner from the firm, he and the partners continue to be liable as partners to 3rd 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 was given of the retirement. In the present case no notice was given of the retirement by the Complainant. In the circumstances he continued to be liable to the acts of other partners of the firm even