Chs/299/2010 Of Suraj K. Masand And Anr v. Satish M. Upadhyaya And Commissioner Of Income Tax-20, Mumbai
High Court
27 Apr 2010 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Chs/299/2010 Of Suraj K. Masand And Anr v. Satish M. Upadhyaya And Commissioner Of Income Tax-20, Mumbai
Date of order
27 Apr 2010
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
Case summary
In Chs/299/2010 Of Suraj K. Masand And Anr v. Satish M. Upadhyaya And Commissioner Of Income Tax-20, Mumbai, the High Court (2010) decided the matter.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
The order — as passed by the High Court
srk
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 299 OF 2010
INEXECUTION APPLICATION NO. 325 OF 2000IN
SUIT NO.3920 OF 1993
Mr. Deepak Y. Chitnis for the plaintiffs.
Ms. Sarika Mehra i/b L.J. Law for the defendants.Ms. Suchitra Kamble for intervener applicant in support of Chamber Summons.
....
CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 27TH APRIL, 2010
P. C.
1.Heard.
2.In my view, no direction can be issued by the Court to the
plaintiff or defendant to pay the dues of the Income Tax. The Income Tax Act, 1961 provides machinery for recovery of the tax dues of an Assessee. The Tax Authorities are free to pursue
the remedies available under the Income Tax Act, 1961 or the rules framed thereunder.
3With these observations the Chamber Summons is disposed of.
[ D.G. KARNIK, J. ]
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.
EaseValue