NADIR KHAN vs QADIR HUSSAIN Ss — 2024 CLD 619 SUPREME-COURT

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

NADIR KHAN VS QADIR HUSSAIN Ss. 7, 32(1)(c) & 32(2) & 32(3)---Suit for recovery along with profits against a partner---Partnership at will---Retirement of partner---Procedure provided for retirement not followed---Trial Court held the respondent (defendant in the suit) liable to pay the suit amount and passed a preliminary decree in favour of the appellant (plaintiff) against the respondents to the extent of Rs. 2,38,00,000/- ---Admittedly, the appellant, who was a third party, was the sufferer as he made a huge investment in the (partnership) firm---Since in the instant case no deed of contract had been brought on record determining the period of partnership and determination of partnership, therefore, the High Court rightly observed that the provision of Section 7 of the Partnership Act, 1932 ('Act') would apply, and hence the nature of the partnership was a partnership at will---High Court however erred in deciding the manner of retirement of the respondent---Section 32 (1) (c) of the Act explicitly mentions the precondition of issuing a notice by a retiring partner in writing to all other partners of his intention to retire, which was not issued by the respondent/ retiring partner in the present case---High Court in its reasons applied the procedure of retirement of a partner as given in Section 32 (2) of the Act, which states that the a retiring partner has the obligation of entering into an agreement with the third party and partners of reconstituted firm to discharge him from the liabilities of the partnership before retirement, however there was no agreement available in this case---Further, even if the respondent had fulfilled the requirements of Section 32 (1) (c) and Section 32 (2) of the Act, he would still not be discharged from the liabilities against a third party until a public notice was given by him or by any partner of the reconstituted firm as required under Section 32 (3) of the Act, but in the present case no such public notice was issued---Appeal was allowed and the impugned judgment passed by the High Court was set aside and consequently the judgment and decree of the Trial Court was restored. Citation Name: 2024 CLD 619 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case NADIR KHAN VS QADIR HUSSAIN When the law requires that a particular thing should be done in a particular manner, it must be done in that manner and not otherwise.

NADIR KHAN vs QADIR HUSSAIN Ss — 2024 CLD 619 SUPREME-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 CLD