<?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>1986 (6) TMI 47 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44034</link>
    <description>Regulation 16 of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984 is explained as containing an independent general rule for any change in a firm&#039;s constitution, while clauses (2) and (3) address narrower situations involving continuation after a partner&#039;s death and induction of an eligible employee as partner. A reconstituted firm is not barred from seeking consideration under clause (1) merely because the facts do not fit clauses (2) or (3), since that would render the general provision redundant. On that interpretation, the reconstituted firm was entitled to have its licence application considered under clause (1), and the rejection order was treated as unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 25 Jun 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 22 Jun 2010 16:26:07 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=82563" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1986 (6) TMI 47 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44034</link>
      <description>Regulation 16 of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984 is explained as containing an independent general rule for any change in a firm&#039;s constitution, while clauses (2) and (3) address narrower situations involving continuation after a partner&#039;s death and induction of an eligible employee as partner. A reconstituted firm is not barred from seeking consideration under clause (1) merely because the facts do not fit clauses (2) or (3), since that would render the general provision redundant. On that interpretation, the reconstituted firm was entitled to have its licence application considered under clause (1), and the rejection order was treated as unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 25 Jun 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44034</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>