Case LawHigh Court › Lok Housing & Construction Ltd v. The De...

Lok Housing & Construction Ltd v. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax

High Court 09 Apr 2009 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Lok Housing & Construction Ltd v. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax
Date of order
09 Apr 2009
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Dismissed

Case summary

In Lok Housing & Construction Ltd v. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, the High Court (2009) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.

Issue: It will be open to the State Bank of India to place all material available with the Respondents so as to enable the Respondents to take a decision whether the said properties may be accepted as security in the event this Court passes an order to that effect.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.

The order — as passed by the High Court

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 26 OF 2009 CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 26 OF 2009 CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 26 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 2803 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO. 2803 OF 2008 Lok Housing & Construction Ltd. ...Petitioner Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Range 8(2) & Ors. ..Respondents And State Bank of India ..Applicant/ Interveners Mr. F.B.Andhyarunina, Senior Counsel i/b. Ms. Asifa Khan for the petitioner. Mr. B.M.Chatterjee i/b. Mr. Suresh Kumar for the respondents. Mr. Gupta i/b. M.V.Kini &Co. for the applicant/Interveners. CORAM: F.I.REBELLO AND CORAM: F.I.REBELLO AND J.H.BHATIA,JJ. J.H.BHATIA,JJ. DATE: 9th April, 2009. DATE: 9th April, 2009. P.C P.C. 2 1. This is an application by the intervenors to be added as a party to the petition. A party to be added has to be the necessary party or at the highest a proper party. 2. In the instant case, all that the intervenors are contending is that the properties which the petitioners are intending to secure, the applicants have a charge in respect of the said properties. That would not make them necessary or proper party to this petition. It will be open to the State Bank of India to place all material available with the Respondents so as to enable the Respondents to take a decision whether the said properties may be accepted as security in the event this Court passes an order to that effect. 3. Considering the fact that the intervenor is neither a necessary nor proper party, the Chamber Summons is dismissed. (F.I.REBELLO, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.) (J.H.BHATIA, J.) (J.H.BHATIA, 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