Fresh evidence in stay applications cannot be used piecemeal; financial hardship plea failed for lack of earlier disclosure.

A request to modify a stay order by introducing fresh evidence of financial hardship was rejected because the material, a profit and loss account for the year ending 31 March 2001, had not been produced when the stay application was first heard. The tribunal found no satisfactory explanation for the earlier non-production and held that a stay application cannot be considered in piecemeal. As no valid cause was shown for withholding the evidence initially, the plea to reopen the matter on financial hardship grounds was declined.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant was entitled to modification of the stay order by placing fresh evidence of financial hardship on record.

Analysis: The request was based on a profit and loss account for the year ending 31 March 2001. The Tribunal found no valid explanation for not producing this material when the stay application was originally heard. In the absence of a satisfactory cause for withholding the evidence earlier, the plea to reopen the matter was not entertained, as a stay application cannot be considered in piecemeal.

Outcome: The plea for modification on the ground of financial hardship was declined.

---