Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →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 the partnership formed for carrying on country liquor business, and the refusal of registration under section 184 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, were legally valid in view of the Excise law, the licence conditions, and section 23 of the Contract Act.
Analysis: The partnership deed did not effect a transfer of the liquor licence to the firm merely because the licensees associated other partners in the business. The relevant provisions of the U.P. Excise Manual were treated as executive instructions rather than statutory rules, and the licence condition requiring prior sanction for partnership did not itself prohibit the formation of a partnership. The breach of that condition was punishable by fine, but a penal provision does not by itself imply that the underlying agreement is forbidden by law. The business arrangement was construed as an agreement to carry on the business lawfully, with sales confined to persons authorised under the licence, and the agreement was not shown to be opposed to public policy or otherwise hit by section 23 of the Contract Act.
Conclusion: The partnership was not illegal, and the refusal of registration was unjustified.