https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111716 A company property dispute turned on whether the appellants could prove a better title or interest than the official liquidator and whether they could adduce a consent decree as additional evidence. The court accepted the allotment letter and possession certificate in favour of PFSL as genuine, noted receipt of full and final payment, and found no credible link showing that the appellants or their claimed associate had any lawful basis to deal with the property; the liquidator's title-based claim therefore remained undisturbed. On additional evidence, the court held that Order 41 Rule 27 requires judicial necessity or substantial cause shown from the record, and the appellants failed to show due diligence or any lacuna justifying admission; the request was rejected. en-us Thu, 22 Sep 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 24 Apr 2012 18:14:43 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111716 A company property dispute turned on whether the appellants could prove a better title or interest than the official liquidator and whether they could adduce a consent decree as additional evidence. The court accepted the allotment letter and possession certificate in favour of PFSL as genuine, noted receipt of full and final payment, and found no credible link showing that the appellants or their claimed associate had any lawful basis to deal with the property; the liquidator's title-based claim therefore remained undisturbed. On additional evidence, the court held that Order 41 Rule 27 requires judicial necessity or substantial cause shown from the record, and the appellants failed to show due diligence or any lacuna justifying admission; the request was rejected. Case-Laws Companies Law Thu, 22 Sep 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111716