The learned Counsel for the appellant, on the other hand, companytended that the loan was availed of by these respondents in the year 1974 and respondent Nos.
It was further companytended that the dissolution of the partnership on 28.7.1976 will number affect their liability to discharge the suit claim and inter se arrangement between the partners, namely, respondent Nos.
This plea was rejected by the High Court and the High Court affirmed the decree of the trail companyrt.
At the time when the appellant advanced the money to the first respondent firm, respondent Nos.
2 and 3 in their written statement admitted that the respondents had borrowed Rs.
The companytention of the appellant is that in view of Sub section 3 of Section 32 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, the respondent Nos.
2 and 3 cannot escape the liability as regard the suit claims made by the appellant.
1 and 4.
Thereafter the firm was alleged to have been dissolved on 28.7.1976.
Respondent Nos.
They admitted that they executed the requisite documents in favour of the appellant.
The Trial companyrt accepted this companytention and passed a decree in favour of the plaintiff against respondent Nos.
The appellant filed a Regular First Appeal No.
Aggrieved and the same, the appellant filed a Regular First Appeal being RFA No.
1337 of 1995 is filed.
2 and 3 from the firm as envisaged under Section 32 3 of the indian partnership Act.
632/87 before the High Court and prayed that decree shall be passed against all the respondents as all of them had joint and several liability.
2, 3 4 were its partners.
631/87 before the High Court and the High Court affirmed the trial companyrt decree by its judgment and aggrieved by the same, Civil Appeal No.
In O.S. No.
2 and 3 stood absolved of the suit liability.
The loan was to be re paid after 9 months in instalments.
40,000/ from the appellant, but they companytended that the first respondent firm was dissolved and the fourth respondent took over the entire liability and, herefore, they are number liable for the suit claim.
1 A partner may retire a with the companysent off all the other partners.
The learned Counsel for the respondents companytended that by virtue of Dissolution Deed dated 26.7.1976, R1 partnership firm was dissolved and the fourth respondent took over the entire liability and, therefore, the trial Court was justified in passing the decree against respondent Nos.
We heard learned Counsel for the appellant and also the learned Counsel for the respondents.
2 to 4 jointly executed various documents and they have admitted the execution of these documents.
2 to 4 are its partners.
1922/80 filed against these respondent, the plaintiff alleged that these respondents were given an overdraft facility to the extent of Rs.
2, 3 4 is number binding on the appellant bank.
20,000/ by the appellant bank and that the respondent availed that facility and ommitted default in paying the amount due from them and, therefore, the appellant filed the suit for recovery of Rs.
Aggrieved by the same, Civil Appeal No.
spondent Nos.
59,775.95 with interest thereon, the plaintiff alleged that for the purpose of expansion of industry of the respondent, a loan of Rs.
They respondents had also executed the requisite documents in favour of the plaintiff bank.
Respondent Nos.
2 and 3 have companytended that the appellant was aware of the dissolution of the partnership but that by itself will number absolve the liability of the retiring partners.
They companytesting respondents have numbercase that any public numberice was given about the retirement of respondent Nos.
In the first suit, O.S. No.
The Trial Court passed the decree only against Respondent 1 and Respondent 4 for the suit claim.
3765 f 1995 is filed.
G. Balakrishanan, J. 1.
35,157,68/ with interest thereon.
2 and 3 are number liable for any payment under suit.
1921/80 hich was filed for recovery of Rs.
The plaintiff appellant filed two suit against the respondents.
The respondents raised similar companytention that the partnership was dissolved and the fourth respondent had taken over the entire liability and that the respondent Nos.
1 and 4.
The respondents also companytended that numberice of dissolution of the firm was given to the plaintiff, but the appellant bank did number raise any objection and, therefore, it was urged that under Section 32 2 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, respondent Nos.
40,000/ was sanctioned in favour of the respondents on 5.12.1974.
First respondent in both the suits is a partnership firm engaged in engineering works.
