Petitioners withdrew the writ petition on behalf of the respondents, resulting in the discharge of the rule; no substantive adjudication was made.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
: 1 :
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.2589 OF 1994.
1. Sanjivani (Takali) S.S.K.Ltd. &
Ors. ...Petitioners.
V/s.
The Income Tax Officer, (T.D.S.),
Nashik & Ors. ...Respondents.
Mr.K.B.Bhujale with Mr.Pramod Vaidya for the
Petitioners.
Dr.P.Daniel for the Respondent.
CORAM: S.RADHAKRISHNAN &
J.H.BHATIA, JJ.
DATE : 8th August, 2005.
P.C.:
1. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner
and the learned counsel for the Respondents.
2. Shri Bhujale, the learned counsel for the
Respondents, states that the present Petition does not
survive. In view thereof, rule stands discharged.
(S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.)
(J.H.BHATIA, J.)
Sanjivani (Takali) S.S.K.Ltd. & Ors.
The Income Tax Officer, (T.D.S.), Nashik & Ors.
S.RADHAKRISHNAN
J.H.BHATIA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court