<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1997 (6) TMI 25 - KERALA High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=17520</link>
    <description>A guardian&#039;s signature on the partnership deed was not treated as mandatory where a minor was admitted only to the benefits of partnership, because the governing rules required the guardian&#039;s consent to be shown to the satisfaction of the authority rather than in a fixed form. The Court also treated a defect in the registration documents as curable where the firm&#039;s genuineness was not in doubt and the applicant was given an opportunity to rectify the mistake. A subsequent declaration by the guardian was accepted as curing the formal defect and establishing consent, so the firm remained entitled to registration.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 26 Jun 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 23 Sep 2009 10:57:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=56520" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (6) TMI 25 - KERALA High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=17520</link>
      <description>A guardian&#039;s signature on the partnership deed was not treated as mandatory where a minor was admitted only to the benefits of partnership, because the governing rules required the guardian&#039;s consent to be shown to the satisfaction of the authority rather than in a fixed form. The Court also treated a defect in the registration documents as curable where the firm&#039;s genuineness was not in doubt and the applicant was given an opportunity to rectify the mistake. A subsequent declaration by the guardian was accepted as curing the formal defect and establishing consent, so the firm remained entitled to registration.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 26 Jun 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=17520</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>