<?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>2024 (8) TMI 1677 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=466447</link>
    <description>An appellate court in second appeal cannot frame and decide new substantial questions of law that were neither raised nor tried below without giving the parties a fair opportunity to meet them, including by leading additional evidence where necessary. The appellate procedure under Order XLI and Order XLII CPC allows regulation of evidence and trial-related issues, but does not permit the court to build a new case for either side or decide newly introduced issues without procedural safeguards. Because the High Court framed additional questions at different stages and decided them without affording such opportunity, its judgment lacked a proper procedural foundation and had to be set aside with remand.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 21 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 09 Feb 2026 21:21:25 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=885385" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (8) TMI 1677 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=466447</link>
      <description>An appellate court in second appeal cannot frame and decide new substantial questions of law that were neither raised nor tried below without giving the parties a fair opportunity to meet them, including by leading additional evidence where necessary. The appellate procedure under Order XLI and Order XLII CPC allows regulation of evidence and trial-related issues, but does not permit the court to build a new case for either side or decide newly introduced issues without procedural safeguards. Because the High Court framed additional questions at different stages and decided them without affording such opportunity, its judgment lacked a proper procedural foundation and had to be set aside with remand.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 21 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=466447</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>