https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=25169 The court partly allowed the appeal, sustaining the rejection of the writ petition regarding the immunity granted to respondent No. 3 and the appointment of respondent No. 3 as the Sheriff of Bombay. However, the court issued a rule limited to the challenge against the amnesty scheme, emphasizing the need for further examination of its legality and ethical basis. Each party was directed to bear their own costs of the appeal. en-us Wed, 15 Apr 1987 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 25 Jan 2010 17:22:31 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=25169 The court partly allowed the appeal, sustaining the rejection of the writ petition regarding the immunity granted to respondent No. 3 and the appointment of respondent No. 3 as the Sheriff of Bombay. However, the court issued a rule limited to the challenge against the amnesty scheme, emphasizing the need for further examination of its legality and ethical basis. Each party was directed to bear their own costs of the appeal. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 15 Apr 1987 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=25169