The Cit, Mumbai v. M/S.regal Shoes
High Court
15 Apr 2008 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Cit, Mumbai v. M/S.regal Shoes
Date of order
15 Apr 2008
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In The Cit, Mumbai v. M/S.regal Shoes, the High Court (2008) decided the matter.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.279/2007 IN ITXA (L) 44/2007
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.279/2007 IN ITXA (L) 44/2007
WITH
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.280/2007 IN ITXA (L) 43/2007NOTICE OF MOTION NO.281/2007 IN ITXA (L) 42/2007
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.280/2007 IN ITXA (L) 43/2007
WITH
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.281/2007 IN ITXA (L) 42/2007
The CIT, Mumbai .. Appellant
Vs.
M/s.Regal Shoes .. Respondent
Mrs.P.P.Bhosale with Mr.P.S.Sahadevan for Appellant.
Mr. A.K.Jasani for the Respondent.
CORAM :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN &J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ.
CORAM :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN &
J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ.
DATE : 15th April, 2008
DATE : 15th April, 2008
P.C.
P.C.
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. By
these Notices of Motion, the Appellant is seeking
condonation of 181 days’ delay caused in filing each of
the Appeals. For the reasons stated in the
affidavits-in-support of each of the Notices of Motion,
sufficient cause is made out for condonation of delay,
and there is no case of inaction, negligence or want of
bonafide on the part of the Appellant. Hence, all the
three Notices of Motion in the respective Appeals are
made absolute in terms of prayer clauses (a)
respectively.
(J.P.DEVADHAR, J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.)
(J.P.DEVADHAR, 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.