9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Execution of a decree against a partner when the decree was against the partnership firm. 2. Execution of a decree in violation of Order 21 Rules 49 and 50 C.P.C. 3. Validity of the Will executed by Smt. Dhanwanti Devi. 4. Liability of partners under the Partnership Act. 5. Calculation and payment of interest on the principal amount of the decree. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Execution of a Decree Against a Partner When the Decree Was Against the Partnership Firm: The appellant contended that a decree cannot be executed against a partner when the decree was against the partnership firm. The court held that under the provisions of the Partnership Act, one partner is the agent of the other, and therefore, the partner is always liable for partnership debt unless there is an implied or express restriction. The court referred to Sections 24 and 25 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, which state that notice to a partner is binding on the firm and that every partner is liable jointly and severally for all acts of the firm done while he is a partner. 2. Execution of a Decree in Violation of Order 21 Rules 49 and 50 C.P.C.: The appellant argued that the proceedings were initiated in violation of Order 21 Rules 49 and 50 C.P.C. The court noted that Order 21 Rule 49 provides that no execution can issue against any partnership property except on a decree passed against the firm or against the partners in the firm as such. In this case, the State had obtained a decree against the partnership firm. Order 21 Rule 50 allows execution against the property of the partnership and the separate property of the partners. The court concluded that the High Court correctly held that the Will was executed by Smt. Dhanwanti Devi to defeat the execution of a decree obtained by the State. 3. Validity of the Will Executed by Smt. Dhanwanti Devi: The appellant claimed that Smt. Dhanwanti Devi had executed a Will bequeathing the house to him, and therefore, the property should not be attached in execution. The court found that the High Court had correctly held that the Will was prepared to defraud the creditor and not with an intention to bona fide bequeath the property to the appellant. The court upheld the High Court's finding that the Will was a created document to delay the recovery proceedings. 4. Liability of Partners Under the Partnership Act: The court reiterated that under Section 25 of the Partnership Act, the liability of the partners is joint and several. It is open to a creditor of the firm to recover the debt from any one or more of the partners. The court referred to previous judgments, including Dena Bank vs. Bhikhabhai Prabhudas Parekh & Co. & Ors. and Income Tax Officer (III), Circle-I, Salem vs. Arunagiri Chettiar, which established that partners are liable for the debts of the firm incurred while they were partners. 5. Calculation and Payment of Interest on the Principal Amount of the Decree: The dispute between the parties was regarding the interest on the principal amount of Rs. 37,593 as on 17.10.1992. The State claimed that a sum of Rs. 61,890 was due as interest on the principal amount, and the appellant was also liable to pay subsequent interest. The court calculated the interest payable on Rs. 37,593 from 17.10.1992 at 18% per annum, which amounted to Rs. 1,49,848. However, the court directed the appellant to pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000 in full satisfaction of the claim made by the State of Rajasthan. The court noted that justice should be tempered with mercy and that asking a party to pay interest at 18% per annum from 17.10.1992 was excessive. The appellant was given two months to pay the amount, failing which he would be liable to pay interest at 18% per annum on Rs. 37,593 from 17.10.1992 till the date of payment. The court also imposed a charge over the property until the payment was made. Conclusion: The appeal was disposed of with the direction that the appellant pay Rs. 1,00,000 to the State of Rajasthan within two months. The court emphasized that the liability of partners is joint and several, and the Will executed by Smt. Dhanwanti Devi was intended to defraud the creditor. The court balanced the need for justice with mercy by reducing the interest payable and avoiding prolonged execution proceedings.
|
