Insolvency petition based on admitted debt and default upheld; challenge for malicious initiation rejected, settlement may proceed under resolution fr...
Quashing of FIR and challenge to ECIR over alleged diversion of funds and preferential ESOP pricing dismissed after prima facie money-laundering findi...
The appellate authority misread Rule 112 by treating production of additional evidence in appeal as unavailable, without examining whether the case fell within clauses (a) to (d) of sub-rule (1). The High Court held that the petitioner's contentions on the admissibility of additional evidence required consideration, and that the matter could also have been remanded to the original authority if factual examination was necessary. Because the substantive grounds and additional evidence were not considered under Rule 112, the appellate order could not stand. The order was set aside and the appeal remanded for fresh decision, with all contentions left open.
The appellate authority misread Rule 112 by treating production of additional evidence in appeal as unavailable, without examining whether the case fell within clauses (a) to (d) of sub-rule (1). The High Court held that the petitioner's contentions on the admissibility of additional evidence required consideration, and that the matter could also have been remanded to the original authority if factual examination was necessary. Because the substantive grounds and additional evidence were not considered under Rule 112, the appellate order could not stand. The order was set aside and the appeal remanded for fresh decision, with all contentions left open.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4821 
Join Channel 
