SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 13014

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
VIJU ABRAHAM, J
K.EDVINE VARGHESE – Appellant
Versus
THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 37832 OF 2022



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.P.P.BIJU
For the Respondents: GP SRI.RIYAL DEVASSY

Partners are jointly and severally liable for liabilities arising during the partnership, even if a partner has retired.

Headnote:The petitioner challenged the revenue recovery notice under Ext.P5 issued for the recovery of subsistence allowance per Ext.P3 by the Deputy Labour Commissioner. The court found no illegality in issuing the notice since the petitioner was still a partner at the time of the order. The court permitted installment payments and emphasized continued legal liability despite the petitioner's retirement from the partnership. Final decision: The petitioner must remit the balance due in installments or face recovery action.

Table of Content
1. challenge to revenue recovery procedures and partnership liability. (Para 1 , 2)

JUDGMENT

Petitioner has approached this Court challenging Ext.P5 notice, whereby revenue recovery proceedings was initiated for recovery of the amount due under Ext.P3 order passed by the 4th respondent, Deputy Labour Commissioner.

2. Petitioner submits that he is a doctor by profession and is a partner of a hospital. Petitioner retired from the said partnership on 17.04.2021 as evident from Ext.P2. While so, Ext.P3 order was issued by the 4th respondent for payment of subsistence allowance of Rs.19,300/- to the 7th respondent and for recovery of the said amount, Ext.P5 notice was issued to the petitioner. Petitioner submits that there are other two partners (respondents 5 and 6) and going by Section 25 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 , all the partners are jointly and severally liable for payment of any amount due from the partnership.

It is an admitted case that the petitioner retired from the partnership only as per Ext.P2 dated 17.04.2021. Ext.P3 order by the 4th respondent dated 06.03.2020 on an application submitted by the 7th respondent was issued at a time when the petitioner was very much a partner of the firm. Therefore, I find no illegality in the issuance of Ext.P5 notice demanding amount from the petitioner. It is seen that an interim order was granted by this Court on condition that the petitioner shall deposit an amount of Rs.5,000/-. Petitioner submits that the said interim order has already been complied with. Taking into consideration the above facts and circumstances, I am inclined to dispose of the writ petition permitting the petitioner to remit the balance amount due under Ext.P5 in three monthly instalments starting from 01.03.2026. The interim order granted by this Court will continue, making it clear that in case of any default, the respondents will be free to proceed against the petitioner for recovery of the amount.

Sd/-

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top