TMI Blog1988 (12) TMI 277X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hip firm consisting of two partners Shri Chunilal Khimji Soni and Shri Kantilal Chaturbhuj Soni. It appears, on 27-10-1981 the partner Shri Chunilal Khimji Soni retired from the partnership. A new partnership deed was executed on 23-12-1981 by inducting another partner Shri Jagdish chandra Kantilal Soni. By their letter dated 1-4-1982 the firm intimated the licensing authority as to the change in the constitution of the partnership firm. It appears alongwith that letter a copy of the partnership deed was also forwarded and the department s guidance was sought in the matter. 3. Having regard to the change in the constitution of the firm, the department proceeded on the footing that the firm had carried on the business without licence and t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s has to be made for a new licence because the new partnership constitutes a person different from the persons constituted by the old partnership. The Collector, thereafter refers to the new partnership deed. 7. Section 52 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 reads: Where any firm has been licensed under this Act to carry on business as a dealer or refiner, such licence shall, notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, become invalid on and from the date on which there is a change in the partnership of such firm, unless such change in the partnership has been approved by the Administrator. 8. As per the above provision, the licence issued to the firm becomes invalid on and from the date of which there is a change in the partnership ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... intestate or testamentary. 9. If the applicants were required to make an application regarding the change in the constitution of the firm in a particular form, the department ought to have guided the applicants and on that ground the Collector was not justified in rejecting the request for approval of the change in the constitution of the firm. There is no finding of the Collector to the effect that the said partner inducted is disqualified in any respect under the provisions of the Act or the Rules. The Collector does not appear to have considered the request for approval of the change on merit but has chosen to reject it on mere technicality of not filing the application in proper form. We, therefore, set aside this part of the order an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|