LAWS(NCD)-2016-5-76

K.A. SAIRA BANU KAPALI HOUSE, ARANGATHU CROSS ROAD, PULLEPPADY, ERNAKULAM Vs. K.J. VASUDEVAN & 7 ORS. S/O R. KESAVAN NAIR, VASUDEVA MANDIRAM, VADUKAL ALAPPUZHA KERALA

Decided On May 23, 2016
K.A. Saira Banu Kapali House, Arangathu Cross Road, Pulleppady, Ernakulam Appellant
V/S
K.J. Vasudevan AndAmp; 7 Ors. S/O R. Kesavan Nair, Vasudeva Mandiram, Vadukal Alappuzha Kerala Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this revision petition, the impugned order dated 31.07.2009, passed by the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram (hereinafter referred to as "the State Commission) in Appeal No. 346/2003, A. Rahim & Ors. Vs. K.J. Vasudevan & Ors. , vide which, while dismissing the said appeal, the order dated 29.10.2009, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Alappuza in O.P. No. A. 217/98, filed by the complainant/respondent no. 1, K.J. Vasudevan, allowing the said complaint, was upheld.

(2.) It has been alleged by the complainant/respondent no. 1, K.J. Vasudevan that the opposite party no. 1/respondent no. 2, United Trading Finance is a partnership firm and the opposite parties no. 2 to 8, including the present petitioner/opposite party no. 7 are its partners. The complainant deposited certain amounts with the opposite party no. 1 firm as Fixed Deposits as per the details below:-

(3.) It was stated that the opposite parties failed to return the said amounts to the complainant after the maturity date. The District Forum, vide order dated 29.10.2009, allowed the said complaint and directed the opposite parties no. 1 to 8 to pay a sum of Rs. 1,50,000.00 with interest @ 12% from the date of deposit till realisation with a cost of Rs. 5,000.00. This order was challenged by way of an appeal before the State Commission by four partners i.e. opposite parties no. 5 to 8, pleading that they had since retired from the firm as partners and hence, not liable to pay the said sum. Vide impugned order dated 31.07.2009, the State Commission rejected the said appeal and held that under Sec. 32(3) of the Partnership Act, the retiring partners were liable for the liabilities that existed prior to their date of retirement. Being aggrieved from the said order, the petitioner/opposite party no. 7 is before this Commission by way of the present revision petition.