<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2018 (8) TMI 1344 - SIKKIM HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=365872</link>
    <description>Leave was granted to adduce additional evidence in criminal revision because the proposed documents had a direct bearing on the controversy and were considered necessary for a just decision. The Court treated non-production of those documents as capable of causing failure of justice and directed remand of the case records to the trial court for recording the additional evidence, with liberty for the revisionist to rebut it in accordance with law.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 06 Aug 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 25 Aug 2018 09:27:19 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=531950" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (8) TMI 1344 - SIKKIM HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=365872</link>
      <description>Leave was granted to adduce additional evidence in criminal revision because the proposed documents had a direct bearing on the controversy and were considered necessary for a just decision. The Court treated non-production of those documents as capable of causing failure of justice and directed remand of the case records to the trial court for recording the additional evidence, with liberty for the revisionist to rebut it in accordance with law.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 06 Aug 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=365872</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>