Inconsistent reasoning on evidence justified remand for fresh adjudication, with all issues left open.

An adjudication order that reached mutually inconsistent conclusions on the same evidence and allegations, without adequate reasoned analysis, could not be sustained. Where documents and affidavits were accepted in one part of the order but disregarded elsewhere without sufficient justification, the findings were treated as incoherent and as failing to address the parties' allegations and defences properly. The matter was therefore remanded for de novo consideration, with both sides to be given a fair opportunity to present their case and all issues kept open.

---

---

Issues: Whether the impugned order, which recorded inconsistent conclusions on the evidentiary materials and allegations, could be sustained, and whether the matter should be remanded for de novo consideration.

Analysis: The order under challenge was found to contain mutually inconsistent treatment of the same materials and to proceed without adequate reasoned analysis. In some places the evidentiary documents and affidavits were accepted, while in others similar materials were disregarded without sufficient justification. The findings were therefore regarded as lacking coherent reasoning and not adequately addressing the allegations and defences raised by the parties. In these circumstances, the proper course was to reopen the matter and require fresh adjudication after giving both sides a fair opportunity to present their case.

Conclusion: The matter was remanded to the adjudicating authority for de novo consideration, with all issues kept open.

---