https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=314228 Section 100 CPC confines High Court jurisdiction in a second appeal to substantial questions of law. Following the 1976 amendment, the High Court must formulate the substantial question and ordinarily hear the appeal on that question before interfering with the first appellate decree. Failure to frame and decide such a question makes reversal of concurrent factual findings unsustainable. The prescribed approach requires remittal for fresh consideration in accordance with law where this mandatory requirement has not been met. en-us Tue, 29 Jul 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 27 May 2024 12:55:59 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=314228 Section 100 CPC confines High Court jurisdiction in a second appeal to substantial questions of law. Following the 1976 amendment, the High Court must formulate the substantial question and ordinarily hear the appeal on that question before interfering with the first appellate decree. Failure to frame and decide such a question makes reversal of concurrent factual findings unsustainable. The prescribed approach requires remittal for fresh consideration in accordance with law where this mandatory requirement has not been met. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 29 Jul 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=314228