1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.762 OF 2009 Jayantilal Chhabildas Gohil, Mumbai. ...Petitioner. v. Commissioner of Income-tax-VI, Mumbai & Ors. ...Respondents. Ms.A.Vissanji with S.J.Mehta, advs. For the Petitioner. Mr.J.S.Saluja, adv. For the Respondents. CORAM : F.I. REBELLO & J.H. BHATIA, JJ. DATED : 13th July , 2009 P.C. 1 Rule. Heard Forthwith. 2 Petitioner is before this Court considering the proceeding under Section 179, which have been initiated against him. It is the case of the petitioner that he had not given sufficient opportunity before the respondent no.2 to make out a case as to why he is not liable. Apart from that it is pointed out that majority shareholders were Mr.B.J.Seth and the department in the case of Mr.Amal Banerjee, Mr.B.J.Seth and Mr. Shashikant Sathe and Dr. A.A.Hakim since deceased have discharged them of liability. Petitioner upto the year 1994 was the Managing Director and late Dr. Hakim was the Chairman. In our opinion, 2 considering these facts and circumstances, opportunity would have been given to the petitioner to make out case before the respondent no.2. At the same time, respondents will have to hear the case of the petitioner alongwith other directors, who have since been discharged. Petitioner to appear before the respondent no.2 on 28th July, 2009 at 11.00 a.m. and thereafter, respondent no.2 to complete the proceedings within six months from today. 3 Rule made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs. (J.H. BHATIA,J.) (F.I. REBELLO,J.)