<?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>2016 (6) TMI 1435 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299743</link>
    <description>A first appellate court must independently reappreciate the entire evidence, decide all issues of fact and law, and record reasoned findings; a summary dismissal without such exercise is improper, so the appeal was remanded for fresh disposal. Additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC may be admitted where earlier non-production is justified and the material is relevant to the dispute; because the application was supported by affidavit, unopposed, and concerned public documents relating to title and location of the suit land, it should have been allowed. The appellate judgment and trial decree were set aside, and the suit was restored for fresh trial with liberty to adduce further evidence in accordance with law.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 29 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 29 Jul 2022 09:23:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=665333" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (6) TMI 1435 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299743</link>
      <description>A first appellate court must independently reappreciate the entire evidence, decide all issues of fact and law, and record reasoned findings; a summary dismissal without such exercise is improper, so the appeal was remanded for fresh disposal. Additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC may be admitted where earlier non-production is justified and the material is relevant to the dispute; because the application was supported by affidavit, unopposed, and concerned public documents relating to title and location of the suit land, it should have been allowed. The appellate judgment and trial decree were set aside, and the suit was restored for fresh trial with liberty to adduce further evidence in accordance with law.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 29 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299743</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>