mgn IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL, CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.543 OF 1996 M/s.Kayvee Investors Pvt. Ltd. ..Petitioner Vs. Shri M.K.Chaturvedi & Ors. ...Respondents Mr. S.S. Shetty, for the petitioner. Mr. P.S. Sahadevan, for the respondents. CORAM : F.I. REBELLO & J.H. BHATIA, JJ. DATED : 12TH OCTOBER, 2009 P.C. The petition is directed against concurrent finding of facts which have been upheld by the Tribunal. In an Appeal pending before the learned Tribunal after hearing the petitioners herein the order of the C.I.T. (A) was confirmed and the appeal dismissed. The Appellant had received a loan of Rs.12,61,004/- during the accounting year relevant to the assessment year 1991-92 from M/s.Tyabji Estate Pvt. Ltd. The appellant was holding share of Ms. Tyabji Estate Pvt. Ltd. As it was holding more than 10% share in the Company Section 2(22)(c) is applicable. The issue before the learned Tribunal was in the manner of how to treat loan granted by a closely held company. The Tribunal after considering the provisions of 2(22)(e) was pleased to hold that even if the loan is not granted directly to the shareholder, who has a substantial interest it is payment made to third person on behalf of or for individual benefit of such shareholder, the amount granted as loan would be treated as dividend. In the light of that finding the appeal was dismissed. The petitioners herein moved Misc. Application on the ground that the mistake had crept in the order of the Tribunal and rectification of the same. The learned Tribunal on considering the contentions was pleased to hold that no apparent mistake was pointed out in the order of the Tribunal and what the petitioners were seeking is review of the order and the Review is not permissible under law and accordingly by the order dated 5th April, 1995 dismissed the Misc. Application. 2. It is this order which is the subject matter of the present petition. Rule was issued. However, no interim relief was granted. 3. At the relevant time the petitioner had remedy by way of seeking a reference which the petitioners did not seek. Even otherwise we do not find in the order passed by the learned Tribunal in its order or in Misc. Application any error of law apparent on the face of the record. In the light of that no interference called for. Rule discharged. No order as to costs. (J.H. BHATIA, J.) (F.I. REBELLO,J.)