https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=368518 A party cannot resile from an earlier pleaded case in the same proceeding and then seek relief on a contradictory basis. The appellant had initially sought substitution as a secured creditor on the strength of an assignment, with Section 130 of the Transfer of Property Act invoked only in support of that position. When that claim failed, it attempted to recast the matter as a mere assignment of an actionable claim. The SC held that such inconsistent pleadings and arguments were impermissible, and no error was shown in rejecting substitution and the recall or review request. en-us Mon, 08 Oct 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 12 Feb 2019 15:24:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=368518 A party cannot resile from an earlier pleaded case in the same proceeding and then seek relief on a contradictory basis. The appellant had initially sought substitution as a secured creditor on the strength of an assignment, with Section 130 of the Transfer of Property Act invoked only in support of that position. When that claim failed, it attempted to recast the matter as a mere assignment of an actionable claim. The SC held that such inconsistent pleadings and arguments were impermissible, and no error was shown in rejecting substitution and the recall or review request. Case-Laws Companies Law Mon, 08 Oct 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=368518