Additional evidence and disputed lease transaction led to remand for fresh adjudication and reconsideration of liability.

Additional documents bearing on the supply of machinery and the genuineness of the lease arrangement were not considered at the original stage, so the controversy could not be finally determined on an incomplete record. The matter was therefore remanded for fresh adjudication with liberty to adduce further material. Adverse findings on the Master Lease Agreement, the alleged supply and receipt of machinery, and appropriation of the security deposit could not be sustained without reconsideration of the rival evidence, and the issue of liability under Section 66 was left open for reassessment on remand.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the impugned order should be set aside and the matter remanded for fresh consideration in view of additional documents placed at the appellate stage; (ii) Whether the findings regarding the Master Lease Agreement, supply of machinery, and appropriation of the security deposit could be sustained without reconsideration of the rival material.

Issue (i): Whether the impugned order should be set aside and the matter remanded for fresh consideration in view of additional documents placed at the appellate stage.

Analysis: The appellate record contained documents relied on to show that the machinery and equipment were in fact supplied, including purchase requests, invoices, signatures of receipt, and e-way bills, which had not been considered by the adjudicating authority. Since these materials could bear directly on the defence to the allegations of fraudulent trading and the genuineness of the lease arrangement, the controversy required reconsideration after affording an opportunity to place further evidence.

Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.

Issue (ii): Whether the findings regarding the Master Lease Agreement, supply of machinery, and appropriation of the security deposit could be sustained without reconsideration of the rival material.

Analysis: The adjudicating authority had recorded adverse findings on the lease transaction while also rejecting the application and directing further steps for recovery, but the appellate record showed that material evidence on supply and receipt of machinery had not been examined. The appellate body also noted that the security deposit had been appropriated after commencement of moratorium, while leaving the broader question of liability under Section 66 open for reconsideration on remand.

Conclusion: The findings could not be finally sustained and were required to be reconsidered by the adjudicating authority.

Final Conclusion: The appeals resulted in setting aside the impugned order and sending the matter back for a fresh decision with liberty to the parties to adduce further material.

Ratio Decidendi: Where material evidence bearing on the genuineness of the transaction has not been examined, and the appellate record shows that the controversy may be affected by such evidence, the proper course is remand for fresh adjudication rather than final determination on an incomplete record.

---