Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.31 seconds)

Date Of Decision vs Prem Jit Kaur on 8 December, 2011

4. He submitted that the Apex Court in North Eastern Railway Administration v.Bhagwan Das (D) by LRs, 2008(3) RCR (Civil) 165 and this Court in Arya Mitter and another v. Harbans Lal and another, 2010(Suppl.) Civil Court Cases 862 had held that amendment at appellate stage was also permissible. In the present case, in order to do justice between the parties, it was essential for appellate court to allow amendment of the written statement.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - A K Mittal - Full Document

Ms. Tarika vs K. Sandhir on 17 February, 2012

In support of the submissions that amendments to the written statement can be allowed at any stage, reliance was placed upon Usha Balashaheb Swami and others v. Kiran Appaso Swami and others, 2007(5) SCC 602; Sagar Singh Slathia v. Surinder Pal Singh, 2009(1) PLR 610; Arya Mitter and another v. Harbans Lal and another, 2009(4) PLR 510 and Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons & others, 2009(10) SCC 84.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - R Bindal - Full Document

Avtar Singh vs Gurdeep Singh on 12 September, 2014

2. Referring to Andhra Bank v. ABN Amro Bank N.V. And others, VINOD KUMAR KADYAN 2014.09.25 10:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CR No.3653 of 2012 -: 2 :- 2007(3) CCC 722 (SC), Shiv Dutt & Ors. v. Dharambir & Ors., 2008(1) CCC 781 (P&H) and Arya Mitter & Another v. Harbans Lal and another, 2010 (Suppl) CCC 862 (P&H), it is urged that neither delay would constitute a ground to refuse prayer for amendment nor it can be rejected on the ground of negligence or lapse on the part of the party to plead the same at an appropriate stage. It is urged that when amendment sought for is only explanatory in nature of the grounds of defence already taken, there should not have been any reason to reject the same.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Satish Kumar Thareja vs Agrim And Others on 20 February, 2020

In support of his contentions, he has relied upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Andhra Bank versus ABN Amro Bank N.V. and others, 2007(6) SCC 167, Mohd. Ismail versus Dinkar Vinayakrao Dorlikar, 2009(10) SCC 193 as well as of this Court in the cases of Arya Mitter and another versus Harbans Lal and another, 2009(3) RCR(Civil)756 and Rekha Wadhwa and another versus Pushpa Ahuja and another, 2011(2) RCR (Rent)207.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - A S Grewal - Full Document

Mohan Murari Mohil vs Ramesh Chand And Others on 10 May, 2010

**** Learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner- tenant, is not in a position to dispute that the plea with regard to availability of other premises has already been raised in the course of the reply. Infact, the learned counsel also agreed that the acquisition of title of the property used as a play way school had been admitted by respondent Ramesh Chander in the course of the reply to the amendment application. (A copy of the reply is available on record as Annexure P-4). ("A portion of the residential house measuring 43'X9" X 29" fell into the share of the respondent in a family partition towards Sheron Distributory. In that residential portion a playway school has been strated by Ankur Jindal s/o Ramesh Chand respondent. .... However, it is admitted that Ramesh Chand is the owner of the building and this fact is already on the file as rent note Ex. R2 as been produced by the appellant.") Reliance placed by learned counsel for the petitioner upon Arya Mittal and another Vs. Harbans Lal and another 2009 (2) HLR 133 to assail the impugned order is thoroughly misconceived for want of any parallel between the facts of that case and the case before this Court. The relevant fact having been admitted in the course of the reply, there is no need to effect the amendment.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1