Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 62 (0.87 seconds)

Defendant/ vs Shyam Kumar Gupta Son Of Sri Birendra ... on 19 February, 2019

It is also settled position of law that the mere delay is no ground of dismissal of amendment where no prejudice is caused to the opposite party, reference may be made to the judgment rendered in the case of Dondapati Narayana Reddy vs. Duggireddy Venkatanarayana Reddy and ors., reported in (2001) 8 SCC 115 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court by taking into consideration to advance the interest of justice and to avoid multiplicity of litigation has laid down that such prayer cannot be denied on hypertechnical grounds. The amendment should, generally, be allowed unless it is shown that permitting the amendment would be unjust and result in prejudice against the opposite side which cannot be compensated by costs or would deprive him of a right which has accrued to him with the lapse of time.
Jharkhand High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - S N Prasad - Full Document

Ganpat Lal Gupta And Ors. vs Vth Additional District Judge And Ors. on 21 March, 2003

In Haridas A. Thandani and Ors. v. Godrej Rustam Kirmani, AIR 1983 SC 319 ; Radhika Devi v. Bajrangi Singh, 1996 (2) AWC 724 (SC) : AIR 1996 SC 2358 ; Dondapati Narayana Reddy v. Duggtreddy Venkatanarayana Reddy, (2001) 8 SCC 115 and Prem Bakshi and Ors. v. Dharam Deo, 2002 (1) AWC 484 (SC) : 2002 (3) RD 104, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the Court should be extremely liberal in allowing the amendment of pleadings unless serious injustice or irreparable loss is caused to the other side. The Court must bear in mind that amendment sought should not change the nature of the suit or adversely affect the valuable right of limitation accrued to the opposite party.
Allahabad High Court Cites 37 - Cited by 2 - B S Chauhan - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 Next