https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157142 SC held that the appellant discharged the initial burden under Section 118 and the burden shifted to the second respondent, who failed to prove his case. The HC wrongly treated its exercise as appellate/revisional interference with an acquittal and ought not to have disturbed the finding when two views were possible. The impugned judgment was set aside, the appeal allowed, the appellant discharged from bail bonds, and the second respondent ordered to pay the appellant's costs and counsel fee of Rs. 10,000. en-us Tue, 04 Jul 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 18 Sep 2025 15:48:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157142 SC held that the appellant discharged the initial burden under Section 118 and the burden shifted to the second respondent, who failed to prove his case. The HC wrongly treated its exercise as appellate/revisional interference with an acquittal and ought not to have disturbed the finding when two views were possible. The impugned judgment was set aside, the appeal allowed, the appellant discharged from bail bonds, and the second respondent ordered to pay the appellant's costs and counsel fee of Rs. 10,000. Case-Laws Companies Law Tue, 04 Jul 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157142