https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168636 Concurrent findings of fact are ordinarily not disturbed under Article 136, but interference is justified where material irregularity, failure of justice, or undue hardship is shown; Article 142 also supports complete justice in an appropriate case. The plaintiff's claim of entrustment of 250 tolas of gold failed because the alleged purchase, source of funds, absence of account books or corroborating witnesses, delayed demand, lack of prompt complaint, and denial of execution of the document rendered the transaction unreliable. On that evidentiary basis, no liability was established and the suit failed. en-us Tue, 19 Nov 1985 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 18 Mar 2015 16:58:11 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168636 Concurrent findings of fact are ordinarily not disturbed under Article 136, but interference is justified where material irregularity, failure of justice, or undue hardship is shown; Article 142 also supports complete justice in an appropriate case. The plaintiff's claim of entrustment of 250 tolas of gold failed because the alleged purchase, source of funds, absence of account books or corroborating witnesses, delayed demand, lack of prompt complaint, and denial of execution of the document rendered the transaction unreliable. On that evidentiary basis, no liability was established and the suit failed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 19 Nov 1985 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168636