CHANDRASHEKAR S/O SOMASHEKARAYYA V. THE ADDL. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

WP/107963/2014

AI Insights

The case revolves around a writ petition filed by Chandrashekar, who sought to quash various orders directing the seizure of his vehicles to recover compensation awarded to the family of a deceased employee, Prakash, who worked for Ambika Transport Company. Chandrashekar argued that he was not liable for the compensation as he was not a party to the original compensation claim and that the partnership was dissolved in 2002, which should exempt him from any liabilities. However, the court found that the partnership was not properly dissolved according to the legal requirements, and thus, Chandrashekar was still liable for the partnership's obligations.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 725953 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 20-09-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Bharat Suryodaya Mills Company Limited vs. Mohatta Bros., Manjunatha Nayak H. vs. Ullal Dayananda Hanumantha Nayak by LRs., Syndicate Bank vs. R.S.R. Engineering Works and Others
• Laws Referred To: Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, Partnership Act, 1932
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: PRAVEEN UPPAR; ANIL KALE; AKARSH GOWDA; UDAY P
• Assessee Lawyers: V M SHEELVANT
• Keywords: Certiorari; Certiorari; Compensation; Land Revenue; Mandamus; Partnership Dissolution; Workman's Compensation; Writ petition
• Section: 32; 63; 45; 59

Judgement Text

" - 1 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:13452 WP No. 107963 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH WRIT PETITION NO. 107963 OF 2014 (GM-RES) BETWEEN CHANDRASHEKAR S/O. SOMASHEKARAYYA SAMSTHANAMATH, AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: TRANSPORT BUSINESS, R/O. NO.34, NAKSHATRA COLONY, SHANTI NAGAR, KESHWAPUR, HUBLI. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. V.M. SHEELVANT, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE ADDL. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DHARWAD DISTRICT, DHARWAD. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, K.G. ROAD, BANGALORE-560009. 3. THE SPECIAL TAHASILDAR, BANGALORE NORTH TALUKA, (ADDITIONAL), YELANKHA SUB URBAN, BANGALORE. 4. REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, DHARWAD REGION, DHARWAD. 5. THE ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR, ENQUIRIES-I, KARNATAKA LOKAYAKUTA, M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE. 6. SMT. LAKSHMI BAI, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R SAROJA HANGARAKI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARANTAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:13452 WP No. 107963 of 2014 WIFE OF LATE S. PRAKASH 7. SRI. PRADEEP KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, SON OF LATE S. PRAKASH 8. SRI. UDAY KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, SON OF LATE S. PRAKASH R6, R7 AND R8 ARE R/O. 27/32, 1ST MAIN, 4TH CROSS, KOTTIGE PALYA, MAGADI MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE-560091. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PRAVEEN K. UPPAR, AGA FOR R1-R4; SRI. ANIL KALE, ADV. FOR R5; SRI. AKARSH KUMAR GOWDA, ADV. FOR R6 & R7; R8-UDAY KUMAR P. PARTY IN PERSON (NOC OBTAIN)) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION AND QUASH THE LETTER/DIRECTION BEARING NO. M.S.C./CR/(WORKMAN)/23/11-12 DT 3/2/2014 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-C, LETTER/DIRECTION BEARING NO.MSC/CR/WORKMAN/23/2011-12 DATED 25-04-2014 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-E, LETTER/DIRECTION BEARING NO. COMPT.,LOK.BCD.677/2014 DT 16/05/2014 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-H AND THE LETTER /DIRECTION ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT BEARING NO. RRC(R- 12)CR/01/2014-15 DATE 2/6/2014 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-J; ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION RESTRAINING THE RESPONDENTS FOR RECOVERING THE AMOUNT OF COMPENSATION AS ARREARS OF LAND REVENUE PURSUANT TO THE ORDER PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMAN'S COMPENSATION SUBDIVISION-6, BANGALORE IN WCA/F.C/CR/09/2008 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A & A1 AGAINST THE PROPERTIES OF THE PETITIONER AND ETC. - 3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:13452 WP No. 107963 of 2014 THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 05.09.2024, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CAV ORDER (PER: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH) 1. This writ petition is filed invoking Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying this Court to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction and quash the letter/direction bearing No.M.S.C./CR/(Workman)/23/11- 12 dated 03.02.2014 issued by the respondent No.2 produced at Annexure-C, letter/direction bearing No.M.S.C./CR/Workman/23/2011-12 dated 25.04.2014 issued by respondent No.3 produced at Annexure-E, letter/direction bearing No.Compt.Lok.BCD.677/2014 dated 16.05.2014 issued by the respondent No.5 produced at Annexure-H and the letter /direction issued by the respondent No.1 bearing No.RRC(R-12)/CR/01/2014-15 dated 02.06.2014 produced at Annexure-J and issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction restraining the respondents for - 4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:13452 WP No. 107963 of 2014 recovering the amount of compensation as arrears of land revenue pursuant to the order passed by the Commissioner for Workman's Compensation, Subdivision- 6, Bengaluru in WCA/F.C/CR/09/2008 produced at Annexure-A & A1 against the properties of the petitioner and grant such other reliefs as deemed fit in the circumstances of the case. 2. While seeking the above relief, it is contended that the wife and children of one Prakash filed a petition seeking compensation on account of death of her husband before the Workmen Commissioner for Compensation against M/s. Ambika Transport Company at No.14/3 Shri Madeshwar Buildding in between 4th and 5th Cross, 2nd Main Raod, Kalasipalayam Extension, Bengaluru. The Commissioner having considered the material, given an opportunity to both sides and awarded compensation of Rs.3,45,040/- with interest at 12% on 27.08.2008 as per Annexure-A. the petitioner received recovery notice dated 06.06.2013 fo recovery of amount of compensation - 5 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:13452 WP No. 107963 of 2014 awarded as per Annexure-A. Immediately, the petitioner herein has given representation on 10.07.2013 to the Special Tahasildar, (North Additional) Taluka Yelahanka, Bengaluru stating that he was not a party to the labour case and he is not liable to pay the compensation on as per Annexure-B. The recovery notice was issued to the petitioner on the ground that the name of his business and his brother are same. Respondent No.3 directed respondent No.4 to seize the Lorries of the petitioner and respondent No.5 also issued a direction to respondent No.2 to seize the vehicles of the petitioner and recover the compensation amount on 16.05.2014. Respondent No.1 addressed a letter to respondent No.4 to seize the vehicle of the petitioner and recover the compensation amount with interest on 02.06.2014 and documents of the same are referred as Annexures-C to E and also letter addressed to the Transport Commissioner by the Transport Officer is produced as per Annexure-F. - 6 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:13452 WP No. 107963 of 2014 3. It is contended that the Ambika Transport Company was the owner of the said vehicle and produced copy of RC as Annexure-G. The petitioner also referred the document at Annexure-H dated 16.05.2014. Additional Registrar Enquiry, Karnataka Lokayukta Bengaluru addressed a letter to the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Rural District. The letter addressed by the Deputy Commissioner is in terms of Annexure-J to the Tahasildar of the Dharwad. Annexures-K and L are the certificate of registration. 4. Counsel for the petitioner would vehemently contend that the award passed was against one Om Kumar who is the brother of the petitioner who was running transport business in the name of Ambika Transport Company. Nowhere in the said petition or order it is said that the deceased Prakash was working with the petitioner and he is liable to the pay the compensation. Thus, the directions of the respondents for attaching the Lorries/properties of the petitioner are highly illegal and - 7 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:13452 WP No. 107963 of 2014 arbitrary. It is further contended that the petitioner and other brothers of the petitioner are carrying on their independent transport business in different parts of Karnataka and there is no nexus between the brothers and they are having their own establishment, offices, Lorries and staff etc., The family of the petitioner is not Joint Hindu Family and they have partitioned long back, their business transactions are separately assessed for Income Tax. It is also contended that in response to the letters and directions of the respondents No.1 and 2, respondent No.4 has replied that the vehicles cannot be attached as the petitioner is no way connected to the order of the Commissioner for Workman's Compensation. In spite of that, directions are issued by the respondents which are highly arbitrary and illegal. 5. It is further contended that the respondents neither held an enquiry nor they have given an opportunity to the petitioner before ordering attachment of the Lorries of the petitioner and thus the letters and - 8 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:13452 WP No. 107963 of 2014 directions issued to respondent No.4 by other respondents are unsustainable. The business of the brother of the petitioner viz., Om Kumar is nothing to do with the business of the petitioner, merely because similarity in the business (firm) name, they are proceeding attach the Lorries of the petitioner. The said Lorries have been purchased by the petitioner in his name and his brothers and further they are separately assessed for income tax and they were separately doing the business, as such the petitioner cannot be penalized for the liability of his brother and thus the direction issued by the respondents are liable to be quashed. 6. It is further contended that the Registrar of Lokayukta has no jurisdiction to issue directions to recover the amount by attaching the Lorries of the petitioner and the same is illegal action which has resulted in violation of infringement of fundamental right of profession guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the - 9 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:13452 WP No. 107963 of 2014 Constitution of India. Hence, the present writ petition is filed. 7. Counsel for the petitioner in his argument vehemently contended that the very attachment of the Lorry belonging to the petitioner is illegal. He further contends that earlier there was a partnership and the same was dissolved in 2002 itself and deed of dissolution of the year 2002 and separate income tax filed by the petitioner are also relied upon and the income tax filed is not in the name of the firm. He also relied upon Annexure- Q which clearly disclose that the brother of the petitioner Om Kumar also filed income tax in his individual name and this petitioner is no way concerned with the vehicle which was attached and he had deposited the amount before this Court as directed by this Court and hence the amount in deposit is also to be refunded to the petitioner. 8. This writ petition is opposed by respondents No.6 to 8 who are the claimants before the Commissioner contending that the petitioner has not deposited Gratuity - 10 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:13452 WP No. 107963 of 2014 amount which the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Gratuity Payment Controlling Authority, Bengaluru has passed an order on 13.03.2012 awarding gratuity of Rs.60,000/- payable to the respondents from 10.12.2007 and should be deposited within 30 days, failing which from 11.01.2008, the petitioner is liable to pay interest at the rate of 10% p.a. The petitioner has not deposited the said amount with interest. Order copy is also produced as Annexure-R2 and award as Annexure-R1. 9. It is also contended that the deceased was working at Bengaluru Branch and Head Office is located at Hubballi and extract of payment of salary statement is produced as Annexure-R3. It is also contended that the claim petition is filed against M/s. Ambika Transport Company and the petitioner was carrying his business in the name and style of Ambika Transport Company and later he changed as ATC Logistics. This clearly would go to show that the petitioner by changing the name of transport company is trying to mislead the respondents to - 11 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:13452 WP No. 107963 of 2014 pay compensation. The same is also reflected in the copy of bill of the company produced as Annexure-R4. It is also contended that the that the petitioner and his brothers are running the Transport business in different places including at Bengaluru under the name and style of Ambika Transport Company which is reflected from the endorsement issued by RTO Dharwad and the said endorsement is produced as Annexure-R5. It is also contended that in order to show that Ambika Transport Company is a joint owner company which is run by the petitioner and his brothers and the petitioner was paying the salary to the deceased and the same is confirmed by the petitioner which is reflecting in the objection statement filed by the brother of the petitioner and the same is also produced as Annexure-R6. It is contended that the petitioner is doing the transport business at Bengaluru and the said Ambika Transport company is now situated at 83/6, 1 Main road, Near S.J.P. Police Station Kalasipalya, Bengaluru - 560 002 which is evident from photographs produced at Annexure-R7 and also a copy of the Mahazar - 12 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:13452 WP No. 107963 of 2014 dated 17.09.2014 made and submitted as per the copy of the same is produced at Annexure-R8. 10. It is contended that the very contention taken by the petitioner is against the material on record and when the matter was dragged, parawise statement was also furnished and the same is also produced as Annexure-R9 and hence the petition cannot be allowed. 11. The respondents’ counsel in support of his argument, relies upon the judgment of Gujarat High Court in the case of Bharat Suryodaya Mills Company Limited vs. Mohatta Bros. reported in 1969 0 AIR (Guj) 178, wherein it is discussed with regard to Section 69 of the Act regarding reconstitution/addition of a new partner and also discussed with regard to Section 32 of the Act which speaks about retirement of a partner and also Section 63 with regard to notifying the changes in the constitution of firm or as regards its dissolution. - 13 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:13452 WP No. 107963 of 2014 12. In response to the statement of objections filed by respondents, the petitioner has also filed rejoinder to the statement of objections and relies upon the challenge made with regard to the alleged gratuity amount in W.P.No.52983/2014 and granting of interim stay as Annexure-M and also relied upon deed of dissolution which was reduced into writing and the same is produced as Annexure-N along with rejoinder statement and also produced copy of income tax returns for the period from 2003 to 2012 as Annexures-P1 to P4 and business of petitioner is ATC Logistics and income tax of Om Kumar for the year 2002 to 2007 are also produced as Annexure- Q1 to Q4 and hence contends that the petitioner is not liable to pay any compensation. 13. Counsel for the respondents/claimants in his argument vehemently contends that admittedly, the partnership was started in 1994 and the same was registered and though claims that partnership was dissolved and the same is not in accordance with law and - 14 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:13452 WP No. 107963 of 2014 the said dissolution inter se between the parties and created the document only to defeat the claim of respondents. He also contends that even if the partnership is dissolved and not complied the proviso under the Partnership Act, 1932 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for brevity) for dissolving the partnership and not produced any material and also when the Court directed to furnish the details of provident fund account in 2017 and employees list, the same are not produced and contends that the company is not dissolved. 14. He also brought to notice of this Court Sections 32, 45, 69 and 72 of the Act contending that these provisions are very clear that where a partner of a partnership retires, public notice has to be given. He also brought to notice of this Court the liability for acts of partners done after dissolution and contends that in case of recording of changes in dissolution of a firm, notice to the Registrar has to be given. He also brought to notice of this Court Section 59 of the Act with regard to registration - 15 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:13452 WP No. 107963 of 2014 and contends that if the Registrar is satisfied that the provisions of Section 58 are duly complied with, he shall record an entry of the statement in a register called the Register of Firms and shall file the statement. 15. Counsel referring to these provisions, contends that when there is no any change of constitution of partnership, the petitioner is liable to pay the compensation. In support of his argument, he has produced documents i.e. memo of notices given to the concerned. He has also produced memo of document issued by the employee provident fund wherein iti s mentioned that Ambika Transport which was registered in 1992 and the particulars of owners are still continued and this petitioner is 5th partner along with his brother and no changes are made in the Register of Firms. He has also relied upon RTI given to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and the details given by employees provident fund organization stating that amendment details are not available. He also produced employees - 16 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:13452 WP No. 107963 of 2014 provident fund organization letter dated 30.03.2016, wherein it is mentioned that since the service is more than 10 years of service, hence eligible for pension. Along with the memo dated 23.03.2022, he relied upon partnership deed and also reply given by the Registrar Office stating that there is no changes in the partnership and also endorsement regarding no any amendments of company with regard to partnership or dissolution and hence the very contention of the petitioner cannot be accepted in view of there is no dissolution and also letter dated 07.10.2016 is clear that till 2016 also partnership is not dissolved and no such any entries. Hence, the petitioner cannot contend that the petitioner is not liable since his name has been continued in the partnership firm of Ambika Transport Company. 16. Having heard respective counsels and taking note of the grounds urged in the petition as well as statement of objections and rejoinder, the following point would arise for consideration of this Court - 17 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:13452 WP No. 107963 of 2014 i. Whether this Court can grant the relief as sought by quashing Annexures-C, E, H and J as sought in the writ petition? 17. On perusal of the material on record, there is no dispute with regard to the fact that the husband and father of respondents No.6 to 8 was working in Ambika Transport Company and his name has been entered in the employees provident fund scheme and the establishment of M/s. Ambika Transport Company is clear in the said document and the claim is also against Ambika Transport Company and the provident fund scheme was registered by the said Ambika Transport Company and the partnership details are also given, which includes the name of this petitioner as one of the partner along with his brother Om Kumar and others are partners and also details are given that no changes in the said PF registration and partnership is not dissolved as contended by the petitioner and letter dated 07.03.2017 issued by the EPF organization that amendment details are not - 18 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:13452 WP No. 107963 of 2014 available and apart from that letter dated 30.03.2016 is relied upon , wherein it is clear that since the service is more than ten years of service, hence eligible for pension. Apart from that partnership deed is also produced along with the memo and from the letter of Registrar dated 07.10.2016 it is confirmed that there is no changes in the partnership. 18. This Court has to take note that the accident is of the year 2007 and as on the date of accident there was no any changes. The letter of the Registrar dated 07.10.2016 is very clear that partnership was registered on 04.04.1994 and registration number is 4/1994-95 and there is no any changes. When such being the case, it is clear that partnership continued and no doubt dissolution document is relied upon by the petitioner stating that dissolution was made in the year 2002 itself. But, it is also important to note that when the dissolution has taken place, the same has to be communicated to the Registrar - 19 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:13452 WP No. 107963 of 2014 and no such material is placed before the Court regarding communicating the same to the Registrar. 19. In this context, this Court would like to rely upon Sections 32, 45, 59 and 63 which read as under: “32. Retirement of a partner.- (1) A partner may retire,- (a) with the consent of all the other partners, (b) in accordance with an express agreement by the partners, or (c) where the partnership is at will, by giving notice in writing to all the other partners of his intention to retire. (2) A retiring partner may be discharged from any liability to any third party for acts of the firm done before his retirement by an agreement made by him with such third party and the partners of the reconstituted firm, and such agreement may be implied by a course of dealing between such third party and the reconstituted firm after he had knowledge of the retirement. (3) Notwithstanding the retirement of a partner from a firm, he and the partners continue to be liable as partners to third parties for any act done by any of them which would have been an act of the firm if done before the retirement, until public notice is given of the retirement: Provided that a retired partner is not liable to any third party who deals with the firm without knowing that he was a partner. (4) Notices under sub-section (3) may be given by the retired partner or by any partner of the reconstituted firm.” - 20 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:13452 WP No. 107963 of 2014 “45. Liability for acts of partners done after dissolution.— (1) Notwithstanding the dissolution of a firm, the partners 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, until public notice is given of the dissolution: Provided that the estate of a partner who dies, or who is adjudicated an insolvent, or of a partner who, not having been known to the person dealing with the firm to be a partner, retires from the firm, is not liable under this section for acts done after the date on which he ceases to be a partner. (2)Notices under sub-section (1) may be given by any partner.” “59. Registration.— When the Registrar is satisfied that the provisions of section 58 have been duly complied with, he shall record an entry of the statement in a register called the Register of Firms, and shall file the statement.” “63. Recording of changes in and dissolution of a firm.— (1)When a change occurs in the constitution of a registered firm any incoming, continuing or outgoing partner, and when a registered firm is dissolved any person who was a partner immediately before the dissolution, or the agent of any such partner or person specially authorised in this behalf, may give notice to the Registrar of such change or dissolution, specifying the date thereof; and the Registrar shall make a record of the notice in the entry relating to the firm in the Register of Firms, and shall file the notice along with the statement relating to the firm filed under section 59. Recording of withdrawal of a minor.—(2) When a minor who has been admitted to the benefits of partnership in a firm attains majority and elects to become or not to become a partner, and the firm is then a registered firm, he, or his agent specially authorised in this behalf, may give notice to the Registrar that he has or has not become a partner, and the Registrar shall - 21 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:13452 WP No. 107963 of 2014 deal with the notice in the manner provided in sub- section (1).” 20. Having considered the material on record and the aforesaid provisions, Sub-clause (3) of Section 32 of the Act is clear that if a person retires from the partnership or if there is any dissolution in the firm, notwithstanding the retirement of a partner from a firm, he and the partners continue to be liable as partners to third parties for any act done by any of them which would have been an act of the firm if done before the retirement, until public notice is given of the retirement Provided that a retired partner is not liable to any third party who deals with the firm without knowing that he was a party. Section 45 of the Act is also very clear that notwithstanding the dissolution of a firm, the partners 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, until public notice is given of the dissolution. - 22 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:13452 WP No. 107963 of 2014 21. Both Sections 32 and 45 of the Act say with regard to giving of public notice and in the case on hand no such public notice is placed before the Court except producing the dissolution deed. 22. Section 63 of the Act is also clear regarding recording of changes in and dissolution of a firm, which says that when a change occurs in the constitution of a registered firm, every incoming, continuing or outgoing partner, and when a registered firm is dissolved, every person who was a partner immediately before the dissolution, or the agent of every such partner or person specially authorised in this behalf shall, within a period of 90 days from the date of such change or dissolution, given notice to the Registrar of such change or dissolution, specifying the date thereof; and the Registrar shall a record of the notice in the entry relating to the firm in the Registrar of Firms and shall file the notice along with statement relating to the firm filed under section 59. - 23 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:13452 WP No. 107963 of 2014 23. Having read Section 63 of the Act, it is also very clear that notice has to be given to Registrar of such change or dissolution and in the case on hand nothing is placed on record for having given such notice to the Registrar for changes of partnership firm. When there is non-compliance of the above provisions, the contention of the petitioner cannot be accepted. The judgment relied upon by the respondents’ counsel also aptly applicable to the case on hand since discussion was made to Sections 32, 45 and 59 of the Partnership Act. 24. This Court would like to rely upon the judgment of this Court reported in Kar.L.J. page 383 in the case of Manjunatha Nayak H. vs. Ullal Dayananda Hanumantha Nayak by LRs., wherein also discussed the proviso under the Partnership Act, 1932 i.e. Sections 32 and 45 regarding dissolution of firm and particularly discussed with regard to the notice to old customers. It is held that public notice is not the only mode of notifying dissolution, though public notice is one of them and no - 24 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:13452 WP No. 107963 of 2014 such public notice is given for dissolution in the case on hand and apart from that this Court already held that no communication was given to the Registrar of Firms with regard to the dissolution and hence this judgment is also applicable to the case on hand. 25. This Court would also like to rely upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Syndicate Bank vs. R.S.R. Engineering Works and Others reported in (2003) 6 SCC 265, wherein also discussed with regard to Sections 32(3) and 72 of Partnership Act, 1932 and held that liability of retiring partner can be discharged by an agreement between the retiring partner, third party and partners of reconstituted firm and such an agreement can also be implied from the course of dealing between the third party and the reconstituted firm after retirement of a partner. In the absence of such an agreement, express or implied, held, public notice is necessary. Even it is held that liability of a retiring partner against third party and in the absence of agreement - 25 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:13452 WP No. 107963 of 2014 discharging the retiring partners, held, they would remain liable towards their pre-retirement liability. 26. In the case on hand also, there is no any such agreement and apart from that respondents/claimants are the third parties and when the deceased was working in the very same partnership firm and the dissolution relied upon by the petitioner is not communicated to the District Registrar, in accordance with law and in respect of third party is concerned even if assuming that there was dissolution, all the partners are bound by the same and in the case on hand also, there is no any such agreement, express or implied and also Apex Court held that public notice is necessary and in the case on hand, regarding dissolution also, no such public notice is given. 27. Admittedly, the partnership was registered and the petitioner is also a partner of the said firm is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the only contention of the petitioner is that the partnership was dissolved in 2002 itself. But except producing the dissolution deed and - 26 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:13452 WP No. 107963 of 2014 individual filing of income tax, no documents are produced and there is no changes in the PF records as well as in the Registrar of Firm. When such being the case, the very contention of the petitioner that he is not liable to make payment cannot be accepted and once the partnership is registered, the same has to be dissolved in accordance with law and no changes in the records maintained by the Registrar and cannot escape from the liability unless the same is dissolved in accordance with law. 28. Having considered the aforesaid provisions and when the firm was not dissolved in accordance with law by giving public notice or making such entries in the Registrar of Firm and no such entries are found in the records maintained by the Registrar of Firm, the contention of the petitioner that he is no way concerned with the partnership firm and the partnership firm dissolved in the year 2002 itself cannot be accepted. 29. The respondents’ counsel relies upon the Employees Provident Fund Scheme, 1952 and there was - 27 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:13452 WP No. 107963 of 2014 no any changes of amendment with regard to the said firm and the amendment details are also not available in terms of letter dated 07.03.2017 and there is no changes in partnership vide letter dated 07.10.2016 when the information was sought. Under these circumstances, the petitioner cannot seek any relief invoking Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Hence, there is no merit in the writ petition to grant the reliefs as sought for. 30. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following: ORDER The writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (H.P. SANDESH) JUDGE Sh CT-MCK List No.: 4 Sl No.: 1 "