MAHESWARI COMMERCIAL FINANCE CORPORATION TIRUVANNAMALAI Vs. KUMARAN COMMERCIAL FINANCE CORPORATION TIRUVANNAMALAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MAHESWARI Commercial Finance Corporation, Tiruvannamalai, is a registered partnership firm in which one Visalakshi Ammal, mother of muthukrishnan, was a partner. Muthukrishnan, along with his mother Visalakshi ammal was stated to have executed a promissory note in favour of a Chit Fund for the money owned by Muthukrishnan to that Chit Fund in the sum of Rs. 3,213 with further interest thereon. The Chit Fund filed a suit O. S. No. 26 of 1977 ia the District Munsif Court, tiruvannamalai against Muthukrishnan and his mother Visalakshiammal. The plaintiff-chit fund also filed an application for attachment before judgment of rs. 4,000, which, according to the plaintiff chit fund, was stated to be in deposit in Sri MAHESWARI Commercial Finance Corporation to the credit of visalakshi Ammal. In that application, Sri MAHESWARI Commercial Finance corporation was impleaded as a garnishee. On notice of the application for attachment, the garnishee Corporation entered appearance and filed an affidavit disputing the allegation that Visalakshiammal was still a partner of the corporation and that any money due to her was still in deposit with that corporation. It was stated that Visalakshiammal retired from the partnership by giving notice to the other partners on 22nd January, 1977 and her retirement was accepted on 23rd January, 1977 at the meeting of the partnership firm and her retirement took effect from 24th January, 1977, It was also stated in the affidavit of the garnishee Corporation that the accounts of Visalakshiammal in the partnership were settled even on 24th January, 1977. It was stated that by the time the Garnishee notice was served on them, the garnishee Corporation having settled the partnership accounts owed nothing to the retiring partner visalakshiammal.

(2.) AT the enquiry, the learned District Munsif found that the notice of retirement of Visalakshiammal from the garnishee Corporation was registered by the District Registrar only on 27th January, 1977. The learned district Munsif found that the interim garnishee attachment was made by order of the Court even on 25th January, 1977 and therefore, the subsequent retirement of Visalakshiammal with effect from 27th January, 1977 cannot be pleaded by the garnishee Corporation as an answer to the garnishee notice. In this view, the learned District Munsif overruled the objection of the garnishee corporation to the attachment of Rs. 4,000. He accordingly made the attach ment absolute.

(3.) I must say that the reference to the statutory provisions made by the learned counsel for the plaintiff-chit fund, have no bearing on the controversy in the present case. Filing of notice of retirement of a partner to the Registrar of Firms and the requirement as to publicity to be given for that retirement in the Gazette as well as in the local vernacular newspaper, have significance only so far as the firm's creditors are concerned. They have no significance as respects the private creditors of individual partners of the firm. Likewise, when section 45 of the Indian partnership Act speaks of the continuing liability of a partner in the dissolved firm, the reference obviously is to the partner's liability to creditors in their character as partner of the firm. The reference is not to any personal creditors of the individual partner concerned. This is quite clear from the words of section 45 of the Act which are to the effect that the partners in a dissolved firm continue to be liable as such to third parties'for any act done by any of them which would have been an act of the firm if done before the dissolution'. This section therefore cannot be applied to the case of a debt owed by a partner in his or her individual capacity to his or her own creditors as distinct from the firm's liability to the creditors of the firm.