Case LawHigh Court › Cao/1704/2014 Of Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd...

Cao/1704/2014 Of Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. Mumbai v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Nagpur

High Court 17 Jul 2015 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · testcase
Parties
Cao/1704/2014 Of Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. Mumbai v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Nagpur
Date of order
17 Jul 2015
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Other

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In Cao/1704/2014 Of Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. Mumbai v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Nagpur, the High Court (2015) decided the matter.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
1 ca1704.14 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYNAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR COMPANY APPLICATION NO.1704/2014 INCIVIL APPLICATION (O) NO.1178/2013 INO.L.R. NO.6/2013 IN COMPANY PETITION NO.7/2001 In the matter of Maharashtra Explosives Ltd. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ------------- - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's ordersappearances, Court's orders of directionsand Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri Anjan De, Adv. for Official Liquidator. Shri S.V. Sohoni, Adv. for IDBI & IFCI Bank Ltd.Shri M.N. Phadke, Adv. for Bank of Maharashtra.Shri A.S. Dhore, Adv. for applicant/employee. Shri N.A. Padhye, Adv. for Kotak Mahindra.Mrs. S.N. Deshpadne, Adv. for claimant.Shri S.D. Malke, Adv. for workers. CORAM : Z.A. HAQ, J. DATE : 17.7.2015 This is an application filed by the Executive Vice-president of Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited praying that in the order passed by this Court on Civil Application No.1178/2013 in O.L.R. No.6/2013 in Company Petition No.7/2001 on 25th September, 2014, at the end of 2 ca1704.14 the second paragraph on page no.3 following be added : “subject to and without prejudice to the rights of the applicants, being the first charge holders and in accordance with law”. Shri De, the learned advocate for the Official Liquidator submits that he is not concerned with the present matter. Shri Phadke, the learned advocate opposes the modification of the order on the ground that such submissions were not made on behalf of the applicants at the time when the order was passed. Be that as it may, the rights of the applicants, if any, are required to be protected. Hence in the above-mentioned order, on page no.3 in second paragraph the following sentence be added : “subject to and without prejudice to the rights of the applicants, who claims to be the first charge holders and in accordance with law”. The civil application is disposed of in the above terms. JUDGE Tambaskar.
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ Get help with an income-tax notice → 💬 Ask our CA
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation. Full disclaimer & Terms.
Contact Careers Media / Press · Privacy Terms Refund Cancellation Cookies Disclaimer
© 2026 EaseValue Advisors LLP · LLPIN ACN-4920 · Jaipur, Rajasthan