JUDGMENT

K. R. Shriram, J. - Since the challenge in both these petitions arise out of the same search action under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act 1961 (the Act), we dispose both the petitions by this common order and judgment. For convenience, we treat Writ Petition No. 122 of 2009 as the lead matter.

2. Petitioner no.1 is a private limited company. Petitioner no.2 is the Chairman and Managing Director of petitioner no.1. Petitioner nos. 3, 4 and 5 are Directors of petitioner no.1. Petitioner nos. 5, 6 and 7 are the spouses of petitioner nos. 2, 4 and 3, respectively. Petitioner no.8 is the married daughter of petitioner no. 2.

3. Respondent No. 1 was the officer empowered by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) to issue authorization under section 132 of the Act for carrying out search and seizure under the Act. In exercise of his powers under section 132 of the Act, respondent no.1 issued authorisations dated 7th July, 2008 in favour of respondent no.2 and others, authorising them to enter upon and search various premises belonging to petitioners.

4. Petitioner No. 1 was incorporated on 31st December 1960 under the Companies Act 1956 and was a leading manufacturer of forging a