1999 (5) TMI 573

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....i Bijoy Kumar Bose is an intervener in the present appeal filed by M/s. B.B. Bose & Sons. The brief facts of the case are as under :- 1.1. M/s. B.B. Bose & Sons were a Partnership Firm consisting of two partners - Shri Ganesh Chandra Bose (since deceased) and Shri Dinendra Kumar Bose as per registered Partnership Deed dated 1-10-78. Shri Ganesh Chandra Bose was holding 75% shares of the said Partnership Firm. Para 21 of the Partnership Deed provided that on death of Shri Ganesh Chandra Bose, his two sons would be admitted as partners, Shri Bijoy Kumar Bose getting first preference and Shri Sanjoy Kumar along with nephew, Shri Partha Sarathi Bose, to be considered later on. The said Firm was granted a Regular Licence to act as Custom....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....stoms, Calcutta. It was held by the Commissioner that the amended deed of April, 1996 was a tampered document and cannot be accepted as a genuine one. Accordingly, C.H.A. Licence of M/s. B.B. Bose & Sons was suspended. 1.3. As regards the claim of Shri Bijoy Kumar Bose, Commissioner directed him to submit a re-constituted Partnership Deed as per the provisions of the Partnership Deed of 1978 which shall be duly considered by the Department as per the provisions of the Regulations. 2. During the course of arguments before us, number of pleas were taken and submissions were made both by the Counsels of Shri Bijoy Kumar Bose and Shri Sanjoy Kumar Bose. The main arguments were as regards tampering the Partnership Deed. Whereas i....