Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.46 seconds)
Documents citing Gannon Dunkerley & Co. Ltd. vs Steel Authority Of India Ltd., Rourkela on 20 August, 1992

State Of Rajasthan And Anr. vs Mohammed Ikbal And Ors. on 4 March, 1998

8. Cannon Dunkerley & Co. Ltd. v. Steel Authority of India Ltd. (supra) was the case where the Orissa High Court observed that application under Order 8, Rule 9, CPC cannot be treated as one under Order 6, Rule 17, CPC as both are contextually different. Inconsistent pleas which are at variance with plea originally taken in the suit cannot be permitted to be introduced.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 4 - Cited by 17 - Full Document

Gurjant Singh vs Krishan Chander And Others on 27 March, 2000

In State of Rajasthan vs. Mohammed Ikbal (6), this Court considered its earlier judgments in M/s. Ajanta Enterprises (supra) and M/s. Gannon Dunkerley & Co. Ltd. vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd. (7), and held that the plaintiff cannot be allowed to introduce new pleas under the garb of filing rejoinder, so as to alter the basis of his plaint. In rejoinder, plaintiff has a right to explain only the additional facts incorporated by the defendant in his written statement. In rejoinder, plaintiff cannot be permitted to come forward with an entirely new case or raise inconsistent pleas so as to alter his original cause of action.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - B S Chauhan - Full Document

Baldev Singh vs Sarabjit Kaur And Others on 25 October, 2010

Hon'ble Single Judge of Orissa High Court in the matter of M/s. Gannon Dunkerley & Co. Ltd.'s case (supra) was dealing with the eventuality where defendant wanted to file additional written statement without their being any amendment in the plaint. My lord justice Arijit Pasayat as the lordship then was, has interpreted the C.R. No. 3310 of 2010 5 provision of Order 8 Rule 9 CPC and has observed that if defendant wants to file additional pleading then he has to take leave under Order 8 Rule 9 CPC. However, in the present case defendant is not seeking any permission to file additional written statement rather additional written statement was filed after the amendment carried out by the plaintiff in the plaint.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - A Singh - Full Document

Sanil Chandran vs Suroth Ghosh Mazumder & Anr on 8 May, 2025

'M/s. Ganon Dunkerley and Co. Ltd. v Steel Authority of India Ltd. (supra) was the case where the Orissa High Court observed that application under Order 8, Rule 9, CPC cannot be treated as one under Order 6, Rule 17, CPC as both are contextually different. Inconsistent pleas which are at variance with plea originally taken in the suit cannot be permitted to be introduced.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sanil Chandran vs Suroth Ghosh Mazumder & Anr on 8 May, 2025

'M/s. Ganon Dunkerley and Co. Ltd. v Steel Authority of India Ltd. (supra) was the case where the Orissa High Court observed that application under Order 8, Rule 9, CPC cannot be treated as one under Order 6, Rule 17, CPC as both are contextually different. Inconsistent pleas which are at variance with plea originally taken in the suit cannot be permitted to be introduced.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1