Mumbai v. M/S. J. B. Textile Industries
High Court
17 Dec 2008 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Mumbai v. M/S. J. B. Textile Industries
Date of order
17 Dec 2008
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Mumbai v. M/S. J. B. Textile Industries, the High Court (2008) dismissed the appeal.
Decision: In view of the aforesaid utter negligence, the above appeal is dismissed.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
VPH
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
NOTICE OF MOTION No. 2649 OF 2008
IN
INCOME TAX APPEAL No. 828 OF 2007
The Commissioner of Income-Tax, Appellant
8-Mumbai
Vs
M/s. J. B. Textile Industries ... Respondent
Pvt. Ltd.
Mr. Suresh Kumar, for the appellant.
Ms. Pooja Narula, Director of the respondent Company.
CORAM: Dr. S. RADHAKRISHNAN, &
V. C. DAGA, JJ.
DATED: DECEMBER 17, 2008.
P.C.:
----
. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant
and Ms. Pooja Narula, the authorised representative
on behalf of the respondent Company. She tendered
before us Board Resolution dated 22nd November 2008
whereby she has been authorised on behalf of the
respondent Company to appear before us. By the
present Notice of Motion, the appellant is seeking
recall of our order dated 25th June 2008 by which the
above Appeal was dismissed on the ground that though
the delay in filing the appeal was condoned as far
- 2 -
back as on 4th June 2007 and the appeal was numbered
on 16th August 2007, till 25th June 2008 i.e. after
lapse of almost 11 months no steps were taken to serve
the respondent whose office is in Vile Parle Mumbai.
In view of the aforesaid utter negligence, the above
appeal is dismissed.
2. The order passed was on 25th June 2008, the
present Notice of Motion has been taken out on 28th
July 2008, merely stating that the concerned officer
was under the belief that the Appeal along with Notice
of Motion have been served on the respondent. Having
regards to the facts and circumstances of the case, we
are not at all satisfied with reasons given in
paragraph 5 of the affidavit in support of Notice of
Motion. No sufficient cause is made out for recall of
our order dated 25th June, 2007. In the result,
Notice of Motion is dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
[ V.C. DAGA, J.] [ Dr. S. RADHAKRISHNAN, 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.