Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.27 seconds)
Baburao Tatyaba Dongre And Others vs Saraswati Sahakari Gruh Nirman Sanstha ... on 6 April, 2026 cites

Chander Kanta Bansal vs Rajinder Singh Anand on 11 March, 2008

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.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 264 - P Sathasivam - Full Document

Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal & Ors vs K.K. Modi & Ors on 22 March, 2006

10. Before adverting to the merits of the case, a brief snapshot of the settled legal position on the point of amendment, as provided under Order VI Rule 17, is reproduced. Law to this extent has been dealt by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vidyabai and Ors. v. Padmalatha and Anr., (2009) 2 SCC 409, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court, after adverting to the overarching the principles which govern the jurisdiction to permit amendment in the pleadings, including the decision of Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal v. K.K. Modi, (2006) 4 SCC 385, observed that, Court should allow amendment that would be necessary to determine the real question in controversy between the parties, however, the same has to be WP-8179-2015 -7- indisputably would be subject to the condition that no prejudice is caused to the other side. The relevant observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court with regard to the effect of proviso appended to Order VI Rule 17 of the Code, for ready reference, are reproduced, as under :-
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 685 - A R Lakshmanan - Full Document

J.Samuel & Ors vs Gattu Mhesh & Ors on 16 January, 2012

In the case of Samuel and Ors. v. Gattu Mahesh and Ors . (2012) 2 SCC 300, the Supreme Court again emphasised that the term 'due diligence' is used in the Code so as to provide a test for determining whether to exercise the discretion in situations of requested amendment after the commencement of the trial. The observations in Paragraph Nos. 19 to 23 are material and hence extracted below:
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 429 - P Sathasivam - Full Document

Aniglase Yohannan vs Ramlatha And Ors on 23 September, 2005

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.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 170 - A Pasayat - Full Document

Ajendraprasadji N. Pande & Anr vs Swami Keshavprakeshdasji N. & Ors on 8 December, 2006

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.
Supreme Court of India Cites 21 - Cited by 299 - A R Lakshmanan - Full Document
1   2 Next