9911796707
TMI Blog1983 (2) TMI 34X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... consisting of five partners constituted a partnership firm under a deed of partnership dated November 20, 1975, for carrying on the business set out in that deed. The firm has been registered with the Registrar of Firms under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 (Central Act 9 of 1932). On March 20, 1976, the firm filed an application under s. 184 of the I.T. Act, 1961 (Central Act 43 of 1961) (herei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... contends that the reasons on which the authorities have refused registration are totally irrelevant to s. 185 of the Act and the authorities should be compelled to examine and dispose of the application on relevant considerations only. Sri K. Srinivasan, learned senior standing counsel, sought to support the impugned orders. Clause 3 of the partnership deed dated November 20, 1975, sets out t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... courts. Sri Srinivasan has not been able to place before us any ruling of the Supreme Court or this court or any other High Court which has held that the nature of the business carried on by the petitioner is not a business. In rejecting the application made by the petitioner, respondent No. 2 has not addressed himself to the factors that should be considered as per s. 185 of the Act. Unfortunatel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e petitioner and dispose of the same in accordance with law. In the light of my above discussion, I quash the impugned order and issue a writ in the nature of mandamus to respondent No. 2 to restore the application made by the petitioner to its original file and dispose of the same in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in this order. Rule issued is made absolute, But ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
