Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 363 (2.10 seconds)
Documents citing Ajendraprasadji N. Pande & Anr vs Swami Keshavprakeshdasji N. & Ors on 8 December, 2006

Saiyed Rashedakhatun D/O ... vs Vishnubhai Ambalal Patel Deceased Thro ... on 28 August, 2014

In  Ajendraprasadji   N.Pandey   And   Another   v.   Swami   Keshavprakeshdasji   N.   And   Others   (supra),   the  Supreme   Court   held  "As   held   by   this   Court   in   Kailash   vs.   Nankhu   &   Ors.   (supra),   the   trial   is   deemed   to   commence   when   the   issues   are   settled and the case is set down for recording   of   evidence"  (Paragraph­60)   (emphasis  supplied).   In   the   present   case,   both   these  stages   have   arrived.   The   issues   have   been  settled   and   the   case   has   been   set   down   for  recording of evidence.
Gujarat High Court Cites 39 - Cited by 0 - A Kumari - Full Document

Kishore & Ors. vs Additional District Judge, Court ... on 25 February, 2011

In the case of Ajendraprasadji N. Pandey & Anr. Vs. Swami Keshavprakeshdasji N. & Ors. 2007 AIR SCW 513, the Apex Court after reviewing and taking into consideration the law on subject has held that before allowing the amendment in a written statement, the defendant who has sought amendment would have to satisfy that the matter sought to be introduced by amendment could not be raised earlier in respect to due diligence which is one of the foremost requirement of law while allowing an application for amendment in written statement as per the requirement of order VI Rule 17 CPC.
Allahabad High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 1 - A Kumar - Full Document

Vishal Nitinkumar Kondhia vs Jahnvi Vishal Kondhia on 22 January, 2018

I am also not persuaded to accept the submission as made on behalf of the respondent relying on the decision in Ajendraprasadji N.Pandey & Anr. Vs. Swami Keshavprakashdasji N. and Ors. (supra), wherein the Supreme Court considering the issue falling under an amendment application as made under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC in a civil suit, applying the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC, held that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced unless inspite of due diligence the matter could not be raised before the commencement of the trial. The Supreme Court considering the facts of the case in hand held that the appellant in the said case was lacking bonafides as also the amendment 8 (1991)3 SCC 451 ::: Uploaded on - 22/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 23/01/2018 02:18:27 ::: Pvr 18 903wp12862-17-II.doc had sought to introduce a totally new and inconsistent case and thus had refused to permit amendment at a belated stage when deposition of three witnesses was already over as well as documentary evidence was already tendered. This is not the situation in the present case. This decision was also not in the context of a dispute before the family Court.
Bombay High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 0 - G S Kulkarni - Full Document

Anita vs Rita Kapadia And Ors on 17 July, 2019

"Though the counsel for the appellants have cited many decisions, on perusal, we are of the view that some of those cases have been decided prior to the insertion of Order VI Rule 17 with 10 of 16 ::: Downloaded on - 21-07-2019 10:42:53 ::: Civil Revision nos.1570 & 1596 of 2017 -11- proviso or on the peculiar facts of that case. This Court in various decisions upheld the power that in deserving cases, the Court can allow delayed amendment by compensating the other side by awarding costs. The entire object of the amendment to Order VI Rule 17 as introduced in 2002 is to stall filing of application for amending a pleading subsequent to the commencement of trial, to avoid surprises and that the parties had sufficient knowledge of other's case. It also helps checking the delays in filing the applications. [vide Aniglase Yohannan vs. Ramlatha and Others, (2005) 7 SCC 534, Ajendraprasadji N. Pandey and Another vs. Swami Keshavprakeshdasji N. and Others, Chander Kanta Bansal vs. Rajinder Singh Anand, (2008) 5 SCC 117, Rajkumar Guraward (dead) through LRs.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 1 - A R Singh - Full Document

Sri M Krishne Gowda vs Sri Raghu B Narayan on 20 August, 2025

(Ajendraprasadji case [(2006) 12 SCC 1], SCC pp. 14-15, paras 41-43) "41. We have carefully considered the submissions made by the respective Senior Counsel appearing for the respective parties. We have also carefully perused the pleadings, annexures, various orders passed by the courts below, the High Court and of this Court. In the counter-affidavit filed by Respondent 1, various dates of hearing with reference to the proceedings taken before the Court has been elaborately spelt out which in our opinion, would show that the appellant is precluded by the proviso to rule in question from seeking relief by asking for amendment of his pleadings.
Karnataka High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - M Nagaprasanna - Full Document

Perviz J. Modi vs Perviz J. Modi on 20 March, 2013

He submitted that the sum and substance of the finding in the case of Ajendraprasadji N. Pandey vs. Swami Keshavprakeshdasji N. (supra) is found in paragraph 14 of the judgment which holds: "The proviso is directory and not mandatory and calls for substantial and not rigid compliance". Again in paragraph 54 of the said decision, it is held that the amendment seeks to introduce a totally new and inconsistent case. Mr. Joseph 10 1999 (5) SCC 77 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:45:40 ::: KPP 14 CHS No. 867 of 2012 submits that therefore obviously where the bonafides are in doubt and an inconsistent case is set up, an amendment deserves to be disallowed.
Bombay High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - S J Kathawalla - Full Document

_____________________________________________________________________ vs Hira Singh And Anr on 20 June, 2023

12. In the aforesaid judgment, coordinate Bench of this Court has answered both the questions i.e. (i) at what stage, trial would be deemed to have been commenced; (ii) due diligence. While placing reliance upon the judgment passed r by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ajendraprasadji N.Pandeyand another versus Swami Keshavprakeshdasji N. and others (2006) 12 SCC 1, it has been categorically held by this Court that the trial would be deemed to have commenced with the framing of issues. Once the issues are settled and the case is set down for recording of the evidence, party seeking amendment is necessarily required to show due diligence and explain circumstances, under which, he/she could not have raised the matter before commencement of the trial.
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - S Sharma - Full Document

Mamta Rani And Anr vs Dayawanti on 3 December, 2014

23. Though the counsel for the appellants have cited many decisions, on perusal, we are of the view that some of those cases have been decided prior to the insertion of Order VI Rule 17 with proviso or on the peculiar facts of that case. This Court in various decisions upheld the power that in deserving cases, the Court can allow delayed amendment by compensating the other side by awarding costs. The entire object of the amendment to Order VI Rule 17 as introduced in 2002 is to stall filing of application for amending a pleading subsequent to the commencement of trial, to avoid surprises and that the parties had sufficient knowledge of other's case. It also helps checking the delays in filing the applications. [vide Aniglase Yohannan vs. Ramlatha and Others, (2005) 7 SCC 534, Ajendraprasadji N. Pandey and Another vs. Swami Keshavprakeshdasji N. and Others, Chander Kanta Bansal vs. Rajinder Singh Anand, (2008) 5 SCC 117, Rajkumar Guraward (dead) through LRS.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - G S Sandhawalia - Full Document

In Re: Uniworth Resorts Limited vs Unknown on 17 April, 2008

14. The petitioners by claiming entirely new reliefs thereby giving up the reliefs already claimed in the existing company petition except those relating to the allotment of shares (48,200) in favour of the respondents 5 & 6 are attempting to convert the existing company petition into a new petition. The petitioners have not claimed any relief against the seventh respondent, whereas, serious charges are sought to be raised by means of amendments which are being new cannot be permitted, as held in Ajendapmsadji N. Pande v. Swami Keshavprakeshdasji N. (Supra). The relief of ordering an investigation into the affairs of the Company under Section 237(b) of the Act on account of the alleged fraudulent conduct of the seventh respondent falling beyond the scope of the original pleadings cannot be entertained.
Company Law Board Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next