-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 177 OF 2008 IN REVIEW PETITION NO. 150 OF 2007 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 8742 OF 2003 Kamleshsingh Harnamsingh Chowhan ).. Appellant Versus Parekh & Co. and another ).. Respondents Mr Vivek Kantawala i/b M/s Vivek Kantawala & Co. for the Appellant. CORAM: SWATANTER KUMAR, C. J. & A.P. DESHPANDE, J. DATED: 29TH AUGUST 2008. P.C. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant. The contention raised on behalf of the Appellant is that the property tax in relation to the property in question is the principal liability, for clearing which he should be permitted to withdraw the entire amount. The learned Counsel states that on an earlier occasion, the Appellant was permitted to withdraw the entire amount. -2- 2. Be that as it may, we do not find any legal infirmity in the order under Appeal. View which is permissible in law has been taken by the learned Single Judge with reference to and facts and circumstances of the case. While declining to interfere, we grant liberty to the Appellant to move the learned Single Judge for withdrawal of the amount particularly for payment of tax and to permit the Appellant to take his own share, from the remaining amount. 3. Appeal dismissed with liberty as above. No order as to costs. CHIEF JUSTICE A. P. DESHPANDE, J.