Wp/1843/2007 Of Mr. Gerard Mendonca v. The Income Tax Department And 3 Ors
High Court
17 Sep 2007 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Wp/1843/2007 Of Mr. Gerard Mendonca v. The Income Tax Department And 3 Ors
Date of order
17 Sep 2007
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Wp/1843/2007 Of Mr. Gerard Mendonca v. The Income Tax Department And 3 Ors, the High Court (2007) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
The order — as passed by the High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
WRIT PETITION NO.1843 OF 2007
WRIT PETITION NO.1843 OF 2007
WRIT PETITION NO.1843 OF 2007
Mr.Gerard Mendonca ..Petitioner.
V/s.
The Income tax Department & Ors. ..Respondents.
Mr.Venkatesh Sheth i/b. R.A.Fernandes for petitioner.
Mr.B.M.Chatterjee with Ms.P.P.Bhosale for respondents.
CORAM : F.I.REBELLO ANDJ.P.DEVADHAR, JJ.
CORAM : F.I.REBELLO AND
J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ.
DATED : 17TH SEPTEMBER, 2007.
DATED : 17TH SEPTEMBER, 2007.
P.C. :-
P.C. :-
Petitioner is the employee of the respondent
No.3. It is his case that the respondent No.3 has been
involved in evading tax and he has filed the complaint
with respondent No.2.
2. It is not for this Court to exercise its
extra ordinary jurisdiction. In the absence of the
petitioner showing any legal right in his favour. If
there is any information, it would be for the
respondent No.1 & 2 to consider and act according to
law. Petition is dismissed.
(F.I.REBELLO, J.)
(F.I.REBELLO, J.)
(J.P.DEVADHAR, 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