Case LawHigh Court › Cifco Finance Ltd v. Mrs. Virendra Singh

Cifco Finance Ltd v. Mrs. Virendra Singh

High Court 17 Aug 2009 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Cifco Finance Ltd v. Mrs. Virendra Singh
Date of order
17 Aug 2009
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Dismissed

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In Cifco Finance Ltd v. Mrs. Virendra Singh, the High Court (2009) dismissed the appeal.

Decision: The petition is dismissed for non-prosecution.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
abs IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1543 OF 1995 CIFCO Finance Ltd. .. Petitioner V/s Mrs. Virendra Singh, Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. .. Respondents None for the Petitioner. Mr. P.S. Sahadevan for the respondents. CORAM : F.I. REBELLO & D.G. KARNIK, JJ. DATE : 17TH AUGUST 2009 P.C.: 1.The notice under section 226(3) of the Income-tax Act was served on the petitioner. The petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present writ petitioner. By an order dated 20[th] December 1995, interim relief was granted in terms of prayer (c) which was to restrain the respondents from taking any further steps. By the said order, the petitioner was directed to deposit 25% of the amount lying with the petitioner in the account of Mrs. Usha J. Gandhi in this Court within 4 weeks from the date of the order, and in case the amount was deposited, the Prothonotary & Senior Master was directed to invest the amount in any Units or Government Securities in the joint name of the petitioner and the Prothonotary & Senior Master with a condition that it shall not be encashed by the petitioner alone. Liberty was also given to the respondents to take appropriate steps for attachment and sale in respect of the balance amount lying in the fixed deposit in accordance with law. 2.When the matter is called out, non present for the petitioner. The petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. Rule discharged with no order as to costs. Interim order shall stand vacated. 3.It will be open to the concerned parties to take whatever steps in law they are entitled to for applying for the money which is lying deposited in this Court and any consequential relief. (D.G. KARNIK, J.) (F.I. REBELLO, J.)
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