A retired partner is not liable to be adjudicated as an insolvent for the act of the other partners who continued to be in the partnership after the retired partner's retirement, even if there was no proper public notice of the retirement.

ORDER :-

KAILASAM, J.

The petitioners are the first respondent fifth respondent and the legal representative of the second respondent in I. P. 2 of 1965 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Mayuram. They seek to file this petition against the order of the courts below declaring the first and second petitioners herein and the second respondent in the main insolvency petition, as insolvents as partners of a partnership. Ex. B-12 shows that the firm was registered on 11-12-1947, with five partners. Regarding the petitioners 1 and 2 and the second respondent in the main petition, the records of the firm show that the first petitioner ceased to be a partner on 31-12-1956 and the second petitioner and the second respondent in the main petition ceased to be partners on 31-12-1958. This document shows that the partnership informed the authorities under the Partnership Act that the petitioners 1 and 2 and the second respondent in the main petition ceased to be partners from 31-12-1956 and 31-2-1938. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioning creditor who is the respondent in this petition is that in spite of the entry in the record, petitioners 1 and 2 and the second respondent in the main petition continued to he partners. For Ibis submission Exs. B-9, B-10 and B-3 ledgers of the partnership, relating to the years subsequent to their retirement as partners were relied on. Before 1 deal with these documents, reference may be made to Ex. A-4 which was strongly relied upon by the learned District Judge as conclusively establishing that petitioners 1 and 2 and the second respondent in the main petition continued as partners. Ex. A-4 is an application for registration of the firm of the year 1947 by all the partners including the petitioners 1 and 2 and the second respondent to the main insolvency petition. The grievous mistake which the learned District Judge committed was to misread the year of the application for registration as 1967 instead of 1947. From this misreading, the learned Judge jumped to the conclusion that it was indisputable that they continued to be partners till 1967 without realising that they made the application in 1947. Leaving out this document Ex. A-4, reliance was placed on Ex. B-3, B-9 and B-10. Ex. B-3 and B-9 are account books. In Ex. B-9, there is a ledger page relating to the first petitioner in which the first petitioner is named as a partner. Strong reliance is placed upon this circumstance. But a reading of the entire page shows that certain items were debited to Veerappa Chettiar and these items consist of cash paid, electricity charges and some small amounts paid for buying oil etc. The other books Ex. B-3 and B-10 in the ledger pages give only the name of the first petitioner and do not mention him as a partner. These entries also relate to certain amounts of cash and electricity charges and other miscellaneous expenses debited to the first petitioner. It is significant to note that none of these entries relate to any profit that was derived by the partnership or to any amounts paid by the partnership to creditors or other authorities. That these ledger pages have nothing to indicate that the petitioners 1 and 2 and the second respondent in the main insolvency petition continued as partners is obvious. On the other hand, an entry in Ex. B-10 concludes the case against the respondent petitioning creditor. In Ex. P-10 at pages 142, 146 and 147, the profit of the firm is summarised. At page 147 the profits from the handloom and mill goods business is given. At page 148 the gross profit is arrived at and at the end of that page, the net profit is stated to be Rs. 5142.50. It is stated that Govindasami Chettiar who was the third respondent to the main petition is entitled to half share, that is Rs. 2571.25 and Rathinam Chettiar who was the 4th respondent in the main petition is sated to be

Click Here to Read the rest of this document