Dismissed

Viji Subramanian v. Balajee Rajaram Naidu and 3 others

Madras HC24 Oct 2024A/3160/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This application sought to raise an order of attachment on the applicant's property being an erstwhile partner. The single-judge bench held that liabilities incurred while a partner was in office cannot be altered by subsequent retirement, relying on Supreme Court precedent, and dismissed the application.

What did the court decide?

Application to raise the order of attachment dismissed.

Viji Subramanian Vs Balajee Rajaram Naidu and 3 others — Execution and Attachment | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

Appln.No.3160 of 2024

¶2

Appln.No.3160 of 2024 in E.P.No.105 of 2023

¶3

K.KUMARESH BABU,J.

¶4

This application has been filed to raise the order of attachment passed in E.P.No.105 of 2023 dated 26.04.2024.

¶5

2. Heard Mr.B.Arvind Srevatsa, learned counsel for Ms.A.Hinduja Havals, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr.Gawtham C.Raman, learned counsel for M/s.Raman and Associates appearing on behalf of the first respondent.

¶6

The learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant is a third party to the entire proceedings and by orders of this court the property belonging to her had been attached. He would submit that the applicant was an estwhile partner in the third respondent partnership firm and the applicant had retired from the partnership as early as on 29.12.2021 and a compromise decree had been passed and the said compromise had been entered between the respondents only in the year 2023. The applicant has nothing to do with the film “Samuthirakani in Public” and therefore, he would submit that the property belonging to the applicant could not be attached by this Court.

¶7

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶8

Page No:1/5

¶9

Appln.No.3160 of 2024

¶10

He would further submit that the applicant is not a party to the suit and

¶11

therefore, the order passed in the Execution Petition cannot be sustained as no orders could be passed against the third party. Hence, he would seek this Court to raise the order of attachment.

¶12

Countering his arguments Mr.Gawtham C.Raman, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent/ Decree Holder would contend that the applicant herein was a partner during the transaction that was entered between the first and third respondent. The second respondent and the applicant were partners at that point of time and no notice of resignation was made by the applicant. That apart, no acknowledgment from the first respondent eschewing the liability of the applicant was made.

¶13

He would further submit that when the first respondent had acknowledged the liability of the debt that was due when the applicant was a partner, even the subsequent resignation or reconstitution of the partnership firm cannot eschew the liability of an individual who was the partner of the firm when the liability was agreed. He would also rely upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of Syndicate Bank Vs. R.S.R.Engineering

¶14

works and others reported in 2006 (6) SCC 265 to support his contention and therefore would seek this Court to dismiss the application.

¶15

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶16

Page No:2/5

¶17

Appln.No.3160 of 2024

¶18

I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on either side.

¶19

It is not disputed by the applicant that at that relevant point of time when the first and third respondents had entered into an agreeement of which the liability had raised, the applicant was a partner. In such circumstances, it would be useful to analyse the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the first respondent by the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2006 (6) SCC 265. It had held that any partner even though had retired from the partnership even in respect of a public notice, the liabilities that arose prior to the so-called resignation or dissolution of the firm cannot be altered. It had also further held that such retired partner cannot avail the Rule of estoppel even against the third party who makes the claim of such liability even if they had knowledge that the partner had retired from the partnership. The only exclusion that had been covered in the said judgment was that if such third party had subsequently entered a fresh agreement with the newly constituted firm for the liability when the estwhile partner retires, then such third party cannot make the erstwhile partner liable for the debts.

¶20

In view of the above categorical exposition of law by the Hon'ble Apex Court, I do not find any merits in the application and accordingly, the same is dismissed.

¶21

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶22

Page No:3/5

¶23

Appln.No.3160 of 2024

¶24

Gba

¶25

24.10.2024

¶26

K.KUMARESH BABU,J.

¶27

Gba

¶28

Appln.No.3160 of 2024 in E.P.No.105 of 2023

¶29

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶30

Page No:4/5

¶31

Appln.No.3160 of 2024

¶32

24.10.2024

¶33

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶34

Page No:5/5

Viji Subramanian v. Balajee Rajaram Naidu and 3 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Viji Subramanian v. Balajee Rajaram Naidu and 3 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Eltech Appliances Private Limited Vs Bajaj Finance Limited

P.Manikandan, Vs P.a.Gokulamani

M/s.a/c Aarkay Packaging Industries Vs M/s.United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

V P Nandakumar Vs Jayashree

Navco Industries Private Limited Vs Healthcubed India Private Limited and 2 others

M s Marudham Television Pvt. Ltd, Vs M s Sun Tv Network Ltd.