K Kasi Annapurna vs Vemuri Bharathi

THESE two appeals by 3 out of 10 opposite parties are directed against the common order dated 7.6.94 of the Andhra Prasesh State Commission at Hyaderbad in CD. Nos. 51/93 and 96/93 before it, allowing the two complaints and directing opposite parties to refund the various amounts of deposit made by the respective complainants with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from various specified dates with costs of Rs. 500/ - to each complainant but disallowing the claim of exemplary damages.

SINCE the Appellants do not question the quantum determination, it is not necessary to notice facts in detail. The Appellants herein who were opposite party Nos. 4 to 6 in the complaint had only contested the claim mainly on the ground ''that they were not partners of M/s. Vijaya Credit Corporation, and their names had been included fictitiously and under forged signatures and that there was collusion between the Complainants and the said Corporation. The partnership firm and other partners except opposite party No. 9 did not contest the claim made in the two complaints and remained ex -parte before the State Commission. The case of the complainants is that they deposited or renewed deposits of certain specified amounts with opposite party No. 1 -M/s. Vijaya Credit Corporation, a partnership firm of opposite party Nos. 2 to 10, but the opposite parties failed to repay the amount on maturity despite repeated demands and in fact certain cheques issued for repayment also bounced. The State Commission found that opposite parties are carrying on business of accepting deposits on interest and dealing in money lending business and had accepted the various deposits from the complainants under written agreements. It is well settled that the failure to refund the amounts deposited with any financial institution on maturity will amount to deficiency in service. The State Commission found that the opposite party Nos. 4 to 6 except stating that some fraud was committed and their signatures were forged and that their names were not existing in the partnership deed, did not call for the original partnership deed from the Managing Partner nor did they obtain the copy of the original partnership deed and produce the same before the State Commission to show that they are not partners of the partnership firm. Their plea that some fraud was committed and on account of the fraud their signatures were forged by the other partners, was not substantiated before the State Commission. The State Commission evaluated the material on record in respect of each Complainant of the quantum of deposit made and due as also the date of payment of interest and granted the reliefs to each of the Complainants with interest. The only question raised in these appeals is whether the Appellants herein are and/or were partners of M/s. Vijay a Credit Corporation at the relevant time. Photo copies of the respective agreements of fixed deposits in M/s. Vijaya Corporation are on record. These have been executed by the complainants between 1988 to 1991 and M /s. Vijaya Credit Corporation, Regd. No. 3610, represented by its Managing Partner, Smt. P. Bhramaramba dealing in money lending business, construction and financing. Promissory notes -cum -receipts and other documents have been executed, photo copies of which are on record. Photo copies of the cheques for repayment of the deposits with interest issued by the said Corporation under the signatures of Smt. P. Bhramaramba and the memos of the Bank refusing to honour the cheques because of insufficient funds are also on record. Thus there was sufficient material before the State Commission to assess the quantum of each Complainant and these findings are not seriously disputed before this Commission. -

THE complainants had placed on record certified copy of the Form ''A'' issued by the Registrar of Firms. It is a copy of the record of the entry in a Register called the Register of Firms maintained under Section 59 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932. Serial number of the Registration No. is 3610 of 1981, registered on 127.81 with the names and addresses of the partners including the three Appellants who become partners of the firm w.e.f. 1.7.85. This certified copy was obtained on 3.8.91. Sub -section (ii) of Section 58 of the said Act lays down the manner in which registration of a firm may be effected. The statement filed contains, inter alia, the names in full and permanent addresses of the partners and each person signing the statement has also to verify it in the prescribed manner. It is only after the satisfaction of the Registrar that the provisions of Section 58 of the said Act have been compiled with that the Registrar records an entry in the Register of Firms. The proof of the registration of the partnership firm and the names and particulars of the partners is by tendering a certified copy of the Form ''A'' by which the complainants had established on record that the Appellants were partners at relevant time. The State Commission rightly held that fraud and forgery was not established before it. Neither particulars/details of fraud had been mentioned in the reply version, nor any proof was tendered of the alleged fraud. The appellants version that some fraud was committed and their signatures were forged by the other partners, is not established by any evidence on record. The presumption of correctness of the entries contained in Form ''A'' is not rebutted at all.

REFERENCE is made to another certified copy of Form ''A'' on record which shows that the Appellants ceased to be partners w.e.f. 1.12.88. It is pertinent to note that the application for seeking amendment was filed on 1.4.92. The State Commission rightly observed that the Complainants are third party creditors of the said partnership firm and are not bound by it as no notice was given. Under Section 25 of the said Act every partner is liable, jointly with all the partners and also severally for all acts of the firm done while he is a partner. A partner who retires from a firm does not cease to be liable for partnership debts or obligations incurred before his retirement. The crucial date even if it is assumed that the Appellants retired is 1.4.92 when the application for amendment was filed. Till then the Appellants are liable under the doctrine of ''holding out'' as envisaged by Section 28 of the said Act. Even after 1.4.92, the Appellants would be liable as no public notice of retirement is given as required by Section 32 of the said Act. The State Commission, therefore, rightly held that all the opposite parties are liable and if the Appellants alleged that they are not liable to pay, then they can recover the amount by way of contribution from other partners. The order of the State Commission is upheld for the above reasons. The two appeals fail and are hereby dismissed with costs. We assess Rs. 2000/ - as costs in both the appeals. Appeals dismissed.