Special Appeal v. M/S Aker Solution (Services) Pte (Ltd.) ..… Respondent. And

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL (1) (MCC No. 817/2014)Review Application (CLMA No. 12295/14(Delay Condonation Application IN Special Appeal No. 93 of 2014 Director of Income Tax and another. ..… Appellants. Versus M/s Aker Solution (Services) Pte (Ltd.) ..… Respondent. AND (2) (MCC No. 816/2014)Review Application (CLMA No. 12292/14(Delay Condonation Application IN Special Appeal No. 94 of 2014 Director of Income Tax and another. ..… Appellants. Versus M/s Aker Solution (Services) Pte (Ltd.) ..… Respondent. AND (3) (MCC No. 818/2014)Review Application (CLMA No. 12296/14(Delay Condonation Application IN Special Appeal No. 95 of 2014 Director of Income Tax and another. Versus M/s PGS Exploration Limited. ..… Appellants. ..… Respondent. Mr. HM Bhatia, Advocate for the applicant/appellants. Mr. Chetan Joshi, Advocate for the respondents. Dated: August 10, 2015 Coram :Hon’ble K.M. Joseph, C.J. Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J. K.M. Joseph, C.J. (oral): Heard the learned counsel for the parties. After hearing the parties, we are inclined to condone the delay, though opposed. The delay will stand condoned. The applications for condonation of delay stand allowed. As regards the review petitions themselves, we find that from our judgment, what is recorded is that the matter is being sought to be pursued before the Hon’ble Apex Court and we have specifically stated that no attempt is made to persuade us to take a different view, from the view taken in earlier batch of appeals. Now, the learned counsel for the review petitioner would essentially seek to make submission relating to the impact on Section 147 proceedings. We do not think that we should permit the appellant to make submissions, having regard to the manner in which we have disposed of the case, which is self evident from the words used in the judgment. No ground is made out for review. Accordingly, all the review petitions stand dismissed. NCM: (V.K. Bist, J.) 10.08.2015 (K.M. Joseph, C.J.)