Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.87 seconds)
Documents citing Monika Banerjee vs Biswabikash Sengupta on 12 July, 1985

Om Rice Mill And Ors. vs Banaras State Bank Ltd. And Anr. on 27 September, 1999

10. The reliance on the decision in the case of Monika Banerjee v. Biswabikash Sengupta, AIR 1986 Cal 113, wherein a suit for specific performance seeking to amend the pleadings by incorporating the facts that the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract was held to be an alternative case and therefore, it could not be allowed. But the ratio decided in the said decision cannot be attracted in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Inasmuch as here the amendment does not introduce any alternative pleading nor any new cause of action.
Allahabad High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 3 - D K Seth - Full Document

(Formerly Known As Chloride India ... vs Urmila Pasari And Others on 5 July, 2021

13. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner next cites the case of Manika Banerjee V. Biswabikash Sengupta , reported at AIR 1986 CAL 113 for the proposition that the plaintiff should not be allowed to make out two different cases at two stages of the proceedings, on which ground the plea for amendment of the plaintiff was rejected.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - S Bhattacharyya - Full Document

Seetharama Reddiar vs Sri Arulmighu Arunachaleswarar ... on 14 August, 1987

The learned Counsel invited my attention to a decision in Manika Banerjee v. Biswaleikash Sengupta , where it was held that A's application for amendment could not be allowed as A came with two different cases on two occasions. Secondly the proposed amendment was also not in the aid of the case of A. By way of amendment A could not ask for a decree for specific performance of the agreement for sale of the disputed plot at any other price than what hadbeen alleged to have been agreed'to, between the parties.
Madras High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Vijay Pal vs Ajmal & Ors on 10 July, 2013

Monika Banerjee Vs. Biswabikash Sen Gupta AIR 1986 Calcutta 113 but the reliance on this is misplaced as in the said decision it is observed that when by virtue of proposed amendment the applicant is pleading entirely different case which is not aiding the case of plaintiff then the application is liable to be rejected, but in present case the plaintiff is not introducing new facts, but the plaintiffs had only amended the site plan in order to bring the same in consonance with the relief clause and further the facts which the applicant wants to incorporate are only explaining the facts earlier pleaded .
Delhi District Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1