ssm sm sm IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO.1016 OF 2009 PETITION NO.1016 OF 2009 PETITION NO.1016 OF 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s Orders or directions and Registrar’s Orders Court’s or Judge’s Orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr.Ramakant B.Paranjape for the Petitioners. Mr.P.P.Kakade for Respondent Nos.1 to 3. CORAM CORAM CORAM : ANOOP V. MOHTA,J. : ANOOP V. MOHTA,J. : ANOOP V. MOHTA,J. DATED DATED DATED : 27th February, 2009 : 27th February, 2009 : 27th February, 2009 P.C. P.C. P.C. . By consent, heard finally. 2. The Petitioners have challenged the impugned order dated 30th January, 2008 whereby his Appeal under Section 58 (4) of the Indian Partnership Act, was dismissed. The basic contention is that the Respondent Authority should have given an opportunity to the Petitioner to provide and/ or supply suitable names instead of rejection of his application, on the ground of existence of similar name of the firm. ( 2 ) 3. Therefore, without observing anything on merits of the matter, at this stage, in the interest of justice, I am inclined to allow this Petition only on this ground. 4. The learned AGP, for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 makes a submission that they will consider the Petitioner’s application afresh and decide in accordance with law preferably within eight weeks. The Petitioners to appear before the Authority accordingly. 5. In view of this, the Petition is allowed, accordingly. No order as to costs. [ANOOP [ANOOP [ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.] V. MOHTA, J.] V. MOHTA, J.]