TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court Upholds High Court Decision on Additional Evidence in Civil Procedure</h1> The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision to allow additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 Code of Civil Procedure. Regarding the appeal, the ... - Issues Involved:1. Whether the High Court of Bombay was right in directing additional evidence to be led by respondents 1 to 4 under Order 41 Rule 27 Code of Civil Procedure.2. Merits of the appeal concerning the disallowance of specific amounts claimed by the Official Liquidator.Detailed Analysis:1. Additional Evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 Code of Civil Procedure:The first question addressed was whether the High Court of Bombay was justified in allowing respondents 1 to 4 to present additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 Code of Civil Procedure. The Court reiterated that additional evidence could be admitted if the trial court had improperly refused to admit evidence or if the appellate court required it to pronounce judgment. The Court noted that the District Judge had improperly rejected the respondents' request to present evidence and cross-examine respondent 5. Consequently, the High Court was justified in ordering additional evidence to be recorded.2. Merits of the Appeal:a. Disallowance of Rs. 1,30,000:The High Court disallowed the claim of Rs. 1,30,000 as commission on the sale of a Stein-Muller Boiler to the M.P. Electricity Board. The Official Liquidator failed to establish any connection between the Nagpur Company and the sale. The Court found no evidence of an agreement entitling the Nagpur Company to the commission, thus upholding the High Court's decision.b. Commission on General Motors Pumping Sets (Rs. 20,000):The claim for Rs. 20,000 as commission on sales of General Motors pumping sets was also disallowed. The Official Liquidator could not establish that the Nagpur Company was entitled to the infringement commission from sales in the Bhopal area. The High Court found insufficient evidence to support the claim, and the Supreme Court agreed.c. Commission on General Motors Supplies (Rs. 36,000):The claim for Rs. 36,000 was based on the assertion that the Bombay Company withheld 3% commission that should have been paid to the Nagpur Company. The High Court found no sufficient evidence to support this claim, as the terms of the agreement between the two companies were not clearly established. The Supreme Court upheld this finding.d. Supplies to Model Mills and Power House (Rs. 30,000):The claim for Rs. 30,000 related to supplies made to Model Mills and the Power House in Nagpur. The High Court found no evidence to support the claim that the Bombay Company should reduce its commission from 5% to 2%. The Supreme Court agreed with this assessment.e. Stock, Furniture, Motor Car (Rs. 11,927):The High Court allowed Rs. 11,927 for the difference between the book value and the purchase price of stock, furniture, and a motor car. The Supreme Court found no reason to interfere with this finding.f. Wrongful Remission to Hyderabad Company (Rs. 2,686/3):The claim for Rs. 2,686/3 was allowed for the wrongful remission to the Hyderabad Company. The Supreme Court found no dispute regarding this claim and upheld the High Court's decision.Conclusion:The Supreme Court found no reason to interfere with the judgment of the Bombay High Court. The appeal was dismissed with costs.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
