1 hvn IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIFINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 779OF 1989 Veenadevi Singhania ... Petitioner Versus Sureindersingh & Ors. ... Respondents Mr. R. Murlidhar with Mr. Niraj Sheth, Ms. Najma Sheikh and Ms. Pooja Karodia for the Petitioners. Mr. P.S. Sahadevan for Respondents. CORAM : F.I. REBELLO & J.H. BHATIA, JJ. DATED : 6th July, 2009 P.C. Matter is not on board. By consent of the Parties, taken up on board. Heard forthwith. It is not necessary to set out the facts or prayer clauses as prayed for. Suffice it to say that considering the judgment of the Madras High Court in Smt. Radha Gajapathi Raju and another Vs. District Valuation Officer and Others, 239 ITR 704, the judgment in Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vs. Chhaganlal Gupta 227 ITR 729 and the judgment in C.W.T. Vs. Rajeshkumar Gandhi 219 ITR 408, the learned counsel does not press the challenge to Rule 2 of the Wealth Tax Rules or Rules 15, 16 of Schedule III. Rule 2 was substituted by schedule III and that provision has been held to be procedural. In other words, would apply to all pending proceedings. We agree with the view taken by the Madras and other High Courts. Considering that we direct the 2 W.T.O. to assess the Petitioner in terms of schedule III and according to law. The learned counsel submits that in the event revenue is aggrieved by the order of this court, they be granted a liberty to reiterate their challenge to Rule. 2. In our opinion that would be fair. Hence, liberty is granted in the event order of hits court is taken in appeal, by the revenue. In the light of the above, other prayer clauses would not survive. Rule made absolute partly in as much as W.T.O. Is directed to assess the Petitioners in terms of Schedule III. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. (J.H. BHATIA,J.) (F.I. REBELLO,J.)