https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168828 Section 100 CPC limits second appeals to cases involving a substantial question of law, which the appellant must identify and the High Court must formulate at admission before hearing the appeal. Such a question must be debatable, not settled by binding precedent, or arise where the court below has departed from settled legal principles. Concurrent findings of fact are ordinarily not open to interference, except in recognised cases such as ignoring material evidence, deciding on no evidence, misapplying the law in drawing inferences, or wrongly shifting the burden of proof. The High Court's order allowing the second appeal without first formulating the substantial question of law could not stand, and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration. en-us Mon, 17 Sep 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 13 Nov 2015 19:26:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168828 Section 100 CPC limits second appeals to cases involving a substantial question of law, which the appellant must identify and the High Court must formulate at admission before hearing the appeal. Such a question must be debatable, not settled by binding precedent, or arise where the court below has departed from settled legal principles. Concurrent findings of fact are ordinarily not open to interference, except in recognised cases such as ignoring material evidence, deciding on no evidence, misapplying the law in drawing inferences, or wrongly shifting the burden of proof. The High Court's order allowing the second appeal without first formulating the substantial question of law could not stand, and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 17 Sep 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168828