Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether a person admitted as a partner in a liquor vendor's licence under Rule 40(1) of the Bombay Foreign Liquor Rules, 1953 can be denied continuation of the licensed privileges on the death of the original licensee, when he claims only as a surviving partner and not as heir, legal representative, or assignee.
Analysis: Rule 40(1) permits the Collector to recognize a partnership and to alter the licence by adding the partner's name when the partnership is entered into after grant of the licence. Once the Collector had accepted the petitioner as a partner in the licence, the petitioner stood in that recognized capacity and not as a stranger seeking a fresh grant. The condition relied upon by the licensing authority, which speaks of heirs, legal representatives, and assignees, did not govern a claim by a surviving partner. The rejection was based only on the absence of relationship with the deceased licensee and did not address the legal effect of the already recognized partnership.
Conclusion: The denial of continuation of the licensed privileges was unsustainable, and the petitioner was entitled to enjoy the licence by deletion of the deceased partner's name.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a licensing authority has already recognized a partner under the governing licence rules, that partner's status as surviving partner cannot be defeated merely because he is neither an heir nor a legal representative of the deceased licensee.