https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173681 The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision to set aside the remand order by the First Appellate Court, emphasizing that the First Appellate Court should have decided the issues itself rather than remanding the matter. The interpretation of Order XLI Rule 25 was clarified, stating that while discretionary, it becomes mandatory for the trial court to take additional evidence if issues are framed and referred back. The judgment highlighted the discretionary and mandatory nature of statutory provisions, emphasizing the importance of legislative intent and context in interpreting "may" and "shall." en-us Tue, 05 Feb 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 06 Nov 2015 15:41:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173681 The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision to set aside the remand order by the First Appellate Court, emphasizing that the First Appellate Court should have decided the issues itself rather than remanding the matter. The interpretation of Order XLI Rule 25 was clarified, stating that while discretionary, it becomes mandatory for the trial court to take additional evidence if issues are framed and referred back. The judgment highlighted the discretionary and mandatory nature of statutory provisions, emphasizing the importance of legislative intent and context in interpreting "may" and "shall." Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 05 Feb 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173681