In Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Central-2 v. Kanakia Design And Construction Pvt. Ltd, the High Court (2017) decided the matter.
Decision: 3.The review petition is thus rejected for non-compliance of the office objections.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
ppn 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
REVIEW COMPANY PETITION (L) NO.5 OF 2016
IN
COMPANY SCHEME PETITION NO.556 OF 2015
IN
COMPANY SUMMONS FOR DIRECTION NO.505 OF 2015
Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Central-2..Petitioner
Vs.Kanakia Design and Construction Pvt. Ltd. ..Respondent
---
None for the petitioner.None for the respondent.
Mr.E.B.Shivkumar, Company Registrar present.
---
CORAM : R.D. DHANUKA, J. DATE : 11[th] April 2017
P.C. :
.The matter was before the learned Company Registrar.
2.The review petition is rejected under Rule 986 of the Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules by the learned Company Registrar in view of the review petitioner not having complied with the office objections. None appears for the review petitioner when the matter was called out.
3.The review petition is thus rejected for non-compliance of the office objections.
R.D. DHANUKA, 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