{"id":286641,"date":"2023-03-09T16:00:20","date_gmt":"2023-03-09T10:30:20","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=286641"},"modified":"2023-03-10T16:55:40","modified_gmt":"2023-03-10T11:25:40","slug":"supreme-court-emphasises-on-the-limited-scope-of-the-appellate-courts-in-remanding-back-the-matter-for-a-de-novo-trial","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/03\/09\/supreme-court-emphasises-on-the-limited-scope-of-the-appellate-courts-in-remanding-back-the-matter-for-a-de-novo-trial\/","title":{"rendered":"Supreme Court emphasises on Appellate Courts\u2019 limited scope in remanding back the matter for a de novo trial"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><script type=\"text\/javascript\">\n\tdocument.title = 'Limited scope for remand back to trial court: Supreme Court | SCC Blog'\n\tdocument.querySelector('meta[name=\"description\"]').setAttribute(\"content\", \"Supreme Court held that there is limited scope for remand of case by appellate court for a de novo trial at Trial Court.\");\n<\/script><\/p>\n<div style=\"text-align: justify; line-height: 150%;\">\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\"><b>Supreme Court:<\/b> Exercising their appellate jurisdiction, the division bench of <b>Dinesh Maheshwari<\/b>* and Sudhanshu Dhulia J.J., set aside the order passed by the High Court and restored the appeal for consideration by stating that the High Court had passed an <i>ipse dixit<\/i> order and had erred in remanding the matter for trial <i>de novo<\/i> without recording any finding.<\/p>\n<h4 style=\"color: #632423;\">Factual Matrix<\/h4>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">In the matter at hand, the appeal was granted against the common judgement passed by the Kerela High Court whereby the appeal filed by the respondent 1 against dismissal of her suit for cancellation of a sale deed and for prohibitory injunction was disposed of with directions to the Trial Court to decide the suit afresh after <i>de novo<\/i> trial, essentially with the observations that the evidence necessary for proper determination of the suit had not been brought on record.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">It was contended that the subject property was held in joint possession between the respondents and their mother whereby a partnership deed was executed for running the cinema theatre. When respondent 2 enquired about the accounts of cinema theatre from respondent 5, she was informed that her share in the said property was already sold. Upon inspecting the documents existing the Sub-Registrar&#8217;s office, she realised that she was made to sign on a sale deed instead on a security document as mentioned to her earlier. Further, no consideration was received by her and hence, submitted that the said sale deed was void and <i>non-est.<\/i><\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">Respondent 1 had filed another civil suit for prohibitory injunction wherein the Trial Court <i>vide<\/i> its common judgment rejected the petition with the findings <i>inter alia<\/i>, that the circumstances placed on record did not probabilise the case that by defrauding her, the husbands of her sisters executed the sale document while making her believe that it was a security document for getting new films.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">The Trial Court had dismissed both the civil suits by stating that respondent 1 had not taken steps to examine the Sub-Registrar who had registered the sale deed whereupon she had put her signatures on being allegedly made to believe it to be a security document. She had also failed to discharge the burden of proof in terms of Section <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0001516681\">103<\/a> of the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0002726934\">Indian Evidence Act, 1872<\/a> (&#8216;Evidence Act&#8217;).<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">Further, the other two civil suits filed by respondent 2-5 (sisters of respondent 1), seeking partition of the cinema theatre and the subject land on one hand and shopping complex on the other were decreed by the Trial Court.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">The four decisions of the Trial Court were challenged before the High Court wherein it was observed that merely because separate properties of the partners were used for the business of the partnership, it would not entail a presumption that the properties were brought in as partnership assets. While agreeing with the Trial Court it held that the properties obtained by the sisters under the partition deed continued to be held as co-ownership properties even after execution of the partnership deed.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">The High Court affirmed the decree of the Trial Court wherein respondent 1 had claimed prohibitory injunction in the capacity of a partner of the firm against other partners, on the ground that it was an unregistered partnership, therefore, the suit was barred under Section <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0001527879\">69(1)<\/a> of the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0002752440\">Indian Partnership Act, 1932<\/a>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">The High Court had stated that the necessary evidence for proper determination of the suit had not been brought on record and that the evidence already on record were insufficient to arrive at a proper finding in favour of or against the sale deed.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">For these observations, the High Court had considered it appropriate that the parties be given an opportunity to adduce further evidence and the matter be considered afresh.<\/p>\n<h4 style=\"color: #632423;\">Court Analysis<\/h4>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">The Supreme Court stated that the High Court did not advert to the findings of the Trial Court and did not specify as to how the findings recorded by the Trial Court were unsustainable or unjustified.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">The Bench noticed that the High Court had narrated a few circumstances leaning in favour of respondent 1 and then a few other circumstances which favour the genuineness of the sale in question and thereafter, observed that the evidence necessary for a proper determination of the suit had not been brought on record and that the evidence on record were insufficient to arrive at a proper finding in favour or against the sale deed in question. Even the material witnesses were not examined, and no evidence was brought in with regard to passing of consideration.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">The Bench observed that the High Court was unable to arrive at a conclusion on the basis of the material on record. However, fact of the matter remained that on the basis of the same material on record, the Trial Court had indeed arrived at a definite conclusion that respondent 1 had failed to establish her case and hence, the suit was liable to be dismissed.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">The Bench stated that the impugned judgement had a significant omission of the provision empowering the Appellate Court to make an order of remand, thus, it was difficult to find any justification for remand ordered by the High Court. Further the scope of remand in terms of Rule <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0001523477\">23 of Order XLI<\/a> <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0002726944\">Code of Civil Procedure, 1908<\/a> (&#8216;CPC&#8217;) was extremely limited and that provision was inapplicable because the suit in question had not been disposed of on a preliminary point. The remand in the present case could only be correlated with Rule <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0001523478\">23-A of Order XLI<\/a> <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0002726944\">CPC<\/a> and for its applicability, the necessary requirements were that &#8220;<i>the decree is reversed in appeal and a re-trial is considered necessary<\/i>&#8221;, thus, the remand in the present case was not justified.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">The Court, therefore, relied upon <i>Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad<\/i> v. <i>Sunder Singh<\/i>, <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/93Hc0526\">(2008) 8 SCC 485<\/a> to say that the present order of remand had been passed only on <i>ipse dixit<\/i> of High Court <i>sans<\/i> any reason or justification.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">The Court stated that the Trial Court had indeed returned its findings on the basis of evidence on record. Whether those findings were sustainable was not the subject matter of the present appeal but merely because the High Court could not reach to a conclusion on preponderance of probabilities, the evidence on record could not have been treated as insufficient so as to not pronounce the judgment in terms of Rule <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0001523479\">24 of Order XLI<\/a> <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0002726944\">CPC<\/a>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">Without commenting on the merits of the case, the Court stated that in regard to the want of any particular evidence, if the Court found any particular evidence directly within the control and possession of a party having not been produced, the necessary consequences like those specified in illustration (g) to Section <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0001516696\">114<\/a> of the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0002726934\">Evidence Act<\/a> may follow but, merely because a particular evidence which ought to have been adduced but had not been adduced, the Appellate Court cannot adopt the soft course of remanding the matter.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">The above observations of the Court were only to indicate that the remand of the suit for trial <i>de novo<\/i> could not be justified in the present case from any standpoint.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">With this the bench stated that the High Court had erred in remanding the matter for trial <i>de novo<\/i> without recording any finding that respondent 1 was prevented from examining herself or from adducing any other evidence as also without explaining as to on what ground the decree was being reversed. Accordingly, stated that the appeal had succeeded in the present matter and the impugned order of the High Court was set aside, restoring the appeal for reconsideration by the High Court, in accordance with law.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">[<span style=\"font-weight: bold; color: #632423;\">Sirajudheen v Zeenath, <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/9r5133jk\">2023 SCC OnLine SC 196<\/a>, decided on 27-02-2023<\/span>]<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-indent: 18pt;\"><strong><span style=\"color: #000080;\">Judgment authored by Justice Dinesh Maheshwari.<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"FAu2VeGiEB\"><p><a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/05\/15\/know-thy-judge-justice-dinesh-maheshwari\/\">Know Thy Judge | Justice Dinesh Maheshwari<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p><iframe loading=\"lazy\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\" sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" style=\"position: absolute; clip: rect(1px, 1px, 1px, 1px);\" title=\"&#8220;Know Thy Judge | Justice Dinesh Maheshwari&#8221; &#8212; SCC Blog\" src=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/05\/15\/know-thy-judge-justice-dinesh-maheshwari\/embed\/#?secret=XqH3OPwwWj#?secret=FAu2VeGiEB\" data-secret=\"FAu2VeGiEB\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\"><\/iframe><\/p>\n<hr\/>\n<p>Advocates who appeared in this case:<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-left: 18pt;\">For the appellant- SRM Law Associates;<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-left: 18pt;\">For the respondent- Advocate James P. Thomas and Advocate Abid Ali Beeran.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p><i>The remand in the present case could only be correlated with Rule <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0001523478\">23-A of Order XLI<\/a> <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0002726944\">CPC<\/a> and for its applicability, the necessary requirements were that &#8220;the decree is reversed in appeal and a re-trial is considered necessary&#8221;, thus, the Supreme Court held that the remand in the present case was not justified.<\/i><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67517,"featured_media":286661,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,9],"tags":[27414,55865,6252,2943,55866,43129,30459,36306,5363],"class_list":["post-286641","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-supremecourt","tag-cpc","tag-de-novo-trial","tag-evidence-act","tag-injunction","tag-ipse-dixit-order","tag-partnership-act","tag-sale-deed","tag-sub-registrar","tag-supreme-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO Premium plugin v26.4 (Yoast SEO v26.4) - https:\/\/yoast.com\/wordpress\/plugins\/seo\/ -->\n<title>Supreme Court emphasises on Appellate Courts\u2019 limited scope in remanding back the matter for a de novo trial | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Exercising their appellate jurisdiction, the division bench of Dinesh Maheshwari* and Sudhanshu Dhulia J.J., set aside the order passed by HC\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/03\/09\/supreme-court-emphasises-on-the-limited-scope-of-the-appellate-courts-in-remanding-back-the-matter-for-a-de-novo-trial\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Supreme Court emphasises on Appellate Courts\u2019 limited scope in remanding back the matter for a de novo trial\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Exercising their appellate jurisdiction, the division bench of Dinesh Maheshwari* and Sudhanshu Dhulia J.J., set aside the order passed by HC\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/03\/09\/supreme-court-emphasises-on-the-limited-scope-of-the-appellate-courts-in-remanding-back-the-matter-for-a-de-novo-trial\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2023-03-09T10:30:20+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2023-03-10T11:25:40+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-683.png\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"886\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"590\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/png\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/03\/09\/supreme-court-emphasises-on-the-limited-scope-of-the-appellate-courts-in-remanding-back-the-matter-for-a-de-novo-trial\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/03\/09\/supreme-court-emphasises-on-the-limited-scope-of-the-appellate-courts-in-remanding-back-the-matter-for-a-de-novo-trial\/\",\"name\":\"Supreme Court emphasises on Appellate Courts\u2019 limited scope in remanding back the matter for a de novo trial | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/03\/09\/supreme-court-emphasises-on-the-limited-scope-of-the-appellate-courts-in-remanding-back-the-matter-for-a-de-novo-trial\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/03\/09\/supreme-court-emphasises-on-the-limited-scope-of-the-appellate-courts-in-remanding-back-the-matter-for-a-de-novo-trial\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-683.png\",\"datePublished\":\"2023-03-09T10:30:20+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2023-03-10T11:25:40+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84913f82186a8dea042dc300d5751624\"},\"description\":\"Exercising their appellate jurisdiction, the division bench of Dinesh Maheshwari* and Sudhanshu Dhulia J.J., set aside the order passed by HC\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/03\/09\/supreme-court-emphasises-on-the-limited-scope-of-the-appellate-courts-in-remanding-back-the-matter-for-a-de-novo-trial\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/03\/09\/supreme-court-emphasises-on-the-limited-scope-of-the-appellate-courts-in-remanding-back-the-matter-for-a-de-novo-trial\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/03\/09\/supreme-court-emphasises-on-the-limited-scope-of-the-appellate-courts-in-remanding-back-the-matter-for-a-de-novo-trial\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-683.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-683.png\",\"width\":886,\"height\":590},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/03\/09\/supreme-court-emphasises-on-the-limited-scope-of-the-appellate-courts-in-remanding-back-the-matter-for-a-de-novo-trial\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Supreme Court emphasises on Appellate Courts\u2019 limited scope in remanding back the matter for a de novo trial\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84913f82186a8dea042dc300d5751624\",\"name\":\"Editor\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/d822f35f9fcd11386aa47345cde7945e45a64da7205eebe9784f21d0cd223603?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/d822f35f9fcd11386aa47345cde7945e45a64da7205eebe9784f21d0cd223603?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Editor\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/scc-online-editor\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Supreme Court emphasises on Appellate Courts\u2019 limited scope in remanding back the matter for a de novo trial | SCC Times","description":"Exercising their appellate jurisdiction, the division bench of Dinesh Maheshwari* and Sudhanshu Dhulia J.J., set aside the order passed by HC","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/03\/09\/supreme-court-emphasises-on-the-limited-scope-of-the-appellate-courts-in-remanding-back-the-matter-for-a-de-novo-trial\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Supreme Court emphasises on Appellate Courts\u2019 limited scope in remanding back the matter for a de novo trial","og_description":"Exercising their appellate jurisdiction, the division bench of Dinesh Maheshwari* and Sudhanshu Dhulia J.J., set aside the order passed by HC","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/03\/09\/supreme-court-emphasises-on-the-limited-scope-of-the-appellate-courts-in-remanding-back-the-matter-for-a-de-novo-trial\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2023-03-09T10:30:20+00:00","article_modified_time":"2023-03-10T11:25:40+00:00","og_image":[{"width":886,"height":590,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-683.png","type":"image\/png"}],"author":"Editor","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Editor","Est. reading time":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/03\/09\/supreme-court-emphasises-on-the-limited-scope-of-the-appellate-courts-in-remanding-back-the-matter-for-a-de-novo-trial\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/03\/09\/supreme-court-emphasises-on-the-limited-scope-of-the-appellate-courts-in-remanding-back-the-matter-for-a-de-novo-trial\/","name":"Supreme Court emphasises on Appellate Courts\u2019 limited scope in remanding back the matter for a de novo trial | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/03\/09\/supreme-court-emphasises-on-the-limited-scope-of-the-appellate-courts-in-remanding-back-the-matter-for-a-de-novo-trial\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/03\/09\/supreme-court-emphasises-on-the-limited-scope-of-the-appellate-courts-in-remanding-back-the-matter-for-a-de-novo-trial\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-683.png","datePublished":"2023-03-09T10:30:20+00:00","dateModified":"2023-03-10T11:25:40+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84913f82186a8dea042dc300d5751624"},"description":"Exercising their appellate jurisdiction, the division bench of Dinesh Maheshwari* and Sudhanshu Dhulia J.J., set aside the order passed by HC","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/03\/09\/supreme-court-emphasises-on-the-limited-scope-of-the-appellate-courts-in-remanding-back-the-matter-for-a-de-novo-trial\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/03\/09\/supreme-court-emphasises-on-the-limited-scope-of-the-appellate-courts-in-remanding-back-the-matter-for-a-de-novo-trial\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/03\/09\/supreme-court-emphasises-on-the-limited-scope-of-the-appellate-courts-in-remanding-back-the-matter-for-a-de-novo-trial\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-683.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-683.png","width":886,"height":590},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/03\/09\/supreme-court-emphasises-on-the-limited-scope-of-the-appellate-courts-in-remanding-back-the-matter-for-a-de-novo-trial\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Supreme Court emphasises on Appellate Courts\u2019 limited scope in remanding back the matter for a de novo trial"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84913f82186a8dea042dc300d5751624","name":"Editor","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/d822f35f9fcd11386aa47345cde7945e45a64da7205eebe9784f21d0cd223603?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/d822f35f9fcd11386aa47345cde7945e45a64da7205eebe9784f21d0cd223603?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Editor"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/scc-online-editor\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-683.png","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":256686,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/11\/03\/explained-same-offence-but-separate-trials-can-appellate-court-pass-common-judgment-based-on-evidence-recorded-in-only-one-trial\/","url_meta":{"origin":286641,"position":0},"title":"Explained| Same offence but separate trials &#8211; Can appellate court pass common judgment based on evidence recorded in only one trial?\u00a0","author":"Prachi Bhardwaj","date":"November 3, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court: In the case where two different criminal appeals were being heard against two sets of accused, on account of one of them absconding, and decided against two different judgments based upon evidence recorded in separate trials, though for the commission of the same offence, the 3-judge bench of\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/07\/MicrosoftTeams-image-7-1.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/07\/MicrosoftTeams-image-7-1.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/07\/MicrosoftTeams-image-7-1.png?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/07\/MicrosoftTeams-image-7-1.png?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/07\/MicrosoftTeams-image-7-1.png?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":317094,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/03\/15\/misbranding-of-zero-calorie-sweetener-sc-sets-aside-gujarat-hc-order-for-trial-de-novo-legal-news\/","url_meta":{"origin":286641,"position":1},"title":"[Misbranding of Zero Calorie Sweetener] SC sets aside Gujarat HC&#8217;s order for trial de novo; cites absence of material averments in complaint","author":"Editor","date":"March 15, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cThe burden of proof cannot be put on the accused to prove that they were not manufacturing table top sweeteners.\u201d","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Misbranding of Zero Calorie Sweetener","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/Misbranding-of-Zero-Calorie-Sweetener.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/Misbranding-of-Zero-Calorie-Sweetener.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/Misbranding-of-Zero-Calorie-Sweetener.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/Misbranding-of-Zero-Calorie-Sweetener.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":219193,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/09\/06\/utt-hc-appellate-court-to-interfere-with-discretionary-power-of-trial-court-related-to-temporary-injunctions-when-the-order-is-arbitrary-or-perverse\/","url_meta":{"origin":286641,"position":2},"title":"Utt HC | Appellate Court to interfere with discretionary power of trial court related to temporary injunctions, when the order is arbitrary or perverse","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"September 6, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"Uttaranchal High Court: A writ petition was entertained by Manoj K. Tiwari, J. where the petitioner was aggrieved by the order passed by the Appellate Court, where it set aside the status quo passed by the learned trial court.\u00a0 The Court observed the appellate jurisdiction over the original jurisdiction of\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":253689,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/09\/04\/section-100-cpc\/","url_meta":{"origin":286641,"position":3},"title":"Mere reference to factual aspects to conclude question of law does not mean facts and evidence have been reappreciated: SC restates law on second appeal under S. 100 CPC","author":"Editor","date":"September 4, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court: A 3-Judge Bench of N.V. Ramana, CJI and A.S. Bopanna and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ. upheld the judgment of the Madras High Court passed in a second appeal whereby it had reversed the order of the first appellate court granting injunction in favour of the appellant\u2212plaintiff in a property\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/07\/MicrosoftTeams-image-13.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/07\/MicrosoftTeams-image-13.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/07\/MicrosoftTeams-image-13.png?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/07\/MicrosoftTeams-image-13.png?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/07\/MicrosoftTeams-image-13.png?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":274566,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/09\/27\/admiralty-law-scope-intra-court-appeals-interim-orders-commercial-appellate-division-high-court-supreme-court-legal-research-updates-news\/","url_meta":{"origin":286641,"position":4},"title":"Explained| Admiralty Law: Scope of Intra-Court appeals from interim orders to Commercial Appellate Division of the High Court","author":"Prachi Bhardwaj","date":"September 27, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court: The bench of Indira Banerjee* and AS Bopanna, JJ has held that an appeal does not lie to the Commercial Appellate Division of the High Court from an order of the Commercial Division (Single Bench) of the same High Court for addition of a party in an admiralty\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/MicrosoftTeams-image-81-1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/MicrosoftTeams-image-81-1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/MicrosoftTeams-image-81-1.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/MicrosoftTeams-image-81-1.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/MicrosoftTeams-image-81-1.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":266901,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/05\/13\/a-138-ni-complaint-filed-was-barred-by-limitation\/","url_meta":{"origin":286641,"position":5},"title":"A 138 NI complaint filed was barred by limitation but such issue was raised for the first time before the Appellate Court and not Trial Court; Read to know what Kar HC observed","author":"Editor","date":"May 13, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"Karnataka High Court: HP Sandesh J. dismissed the petition and upheld the judgment by the Appellate Court and further directed the complainant to file necessary application to condone the delay. The factual matrix of the case of the respondent\/complainant is that the complainant was running an industry in the name\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Karnataka High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/04\/New_Karnataka.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/04\/New_Karnataka.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/04\/New_Karnataka.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/04\/New_Karnataka.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/04\/New_Karnataka.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/286641","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/67517"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=286641"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/286641\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/286661"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=286641"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=286641"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=286641"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}