Partners in a partnership firm are jointly and severally liable for the acts of the firm, and their liability is not limited to their share in the partnership.

( 1 ) THE brief facts for the purposes of this petition preferred under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India are as under.

( 2 ) THE petitioner is one of the partners of the firm namely; M/s. Dinesh Kumar Harishankar and Company. This partnership firm consisted of 15 partners. This firm was engaged in the sale of country-liquor. A contract of country-liquor was taken by the firm during the period 1978-79, 1979-80 and 1980-81. This was with regard to shops located in the town of Gwalior. For some reason or the other, a dispute arose between the firm in which the petitioner was a partner it is alleged that State authorities did not supply the country-liquor. The matter was taken to the civil court but was dismissed as proper Court-fee was not paid. The further fact is that on 19th of March, 1990, a notice was served on the petitioner and a sum of Rs. 2,75,231/- was sought to be recovered from him. This was issued with a view to recover from him the amount in his capacity as partner of the above firm on account of the liability having been created against the above firm. It is this notice, copy whereof is Annexure P/4 which has been challenged in this petition.

( 3 ) TWO contentions have been raised by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. These are as under: (I) that, the present petitioner was a partner only to the extent of 24% share in the partnership firm and he could be burdened with liability to that extent only; and (II) that, the country-liquor shops could not be opened on account of certain lapses committed by the Governmental agencies themselves.

( 4 ) AS to what lapses were committed by the Government has not been elaborated, though an assertion to this effect has been made in para 3 of the petition. This para is vague. As such, the assertion made by the petitioner cannot be given any recognition.

( 5 ) THE contention of the learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner that the liability of the petitioner was only to the extent of 24% share be examined.

( 6 ) THE liability of a partner for the acts of the firm would be governed by the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). Section 25 of the Act is relevant and it reads as under :"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. "

( 7 ) BEFORE examining the scope of Section 25 of the Act, another section to which the learned counsel for the petitioner has made a reference be also noticed. This is Section 13 (b) of the Act. This deals with mutual rights and liabilities. Section 13 (b) of the Act reads as under:"13 (B) the partners are entitled to share equally in the profits earned, and shall contribute equally to the losses sustained by the firm. "

( 8 ) THE general principle of partnership firm is that a partner is always liable for partnership debt unless there is implied or express restriction to the contrary.

( 9 ) ALL the partners are jointly and severally liable for the acts of one of the partners of the firm. In this regard reference be made to the decision reported as Gurram Subbaraavudu (died) Gurram Subbamma v. Moto Pothula Narasimham (died) Garre Venkaiah, AIR 1974 AP 307. A promissory note was executed by the Managing Partner of the firm. It was found by the Court that the debt was incurred for and on behalf of the firm and, therefore, all the partners are liable. It was pointed out that in view of the provisions contained in Sections 5, 18, 19 and 25 of the Act, all the partners are liable for the acts of other partners of the firm. In the present case, it is clear that the liability was created against the firm while it was carrying on business as firm. All partners including petitioner would thus be liable to discharge this liability.

( 10 ) A reference be made to the decision given by the Supreme Court reported as Sahu Rajeshwar Nath v. Income-tax Officer, C-Ward, M