Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.81 seconds)
M/S Vallabh Electronics Thr. vs Branch Manager United Bank Of India on 21 June, 2019 cites

A. K. Gupta And Sons vs Damodar Valley Corporation on 10 September, 1965

In para 4 of the same judgment this Court has quoted the following passage from the judgment in A.K. Gupta and Sons Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corpn.: (AIR pp. 97-98, para 7) "The general rule, no doubt, is that a party is not allowed by amendment to set up a new case or a new cause of action particularly when a suit on new case or cause of action is barred: Weldon v. Neal.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 309 - A K Sarkar - Full Document

Pirgonda Hongonda Patil vs Kalgonda Shidgonda Patil And Others on 7 February, 1957

"8. The principal reasons that have led to the rule last mentioned are, first, that the object of Courts and rules of procedure is to decide the rights of the parties and not to punish them for their mistakes (Cropper v. Smith, (1984) 26 Ch D 700 (710-711) and secondly, that a party is strictly not entitled to rely on the statute of limitation when what is sought to be brought in by the amendment can be said in substance to be already in the pleading sought to be amended (Kisandas Rupchand v. Rachappa Vithoba, (1909) ILR 33 Bom 644 at p. 651, approved in Pirgonda Hongonda Patil v. Kalgonda Shidgonda, 1957 SCR 595 (603): (AIR 1957 SC 363 at p. 366)."
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 387 - S K Das - Full Document

B.K-Narayana Pillai vs Pararneswaran Pillai & Anr on 13 December, 1999

"8. It is fairly settled in law that the amendment of pleadings under Order 6 Rule 17 is to be allowed if such an amendment is required for proper and effective adjudication of controversy between the parties and to avoid multiplicity of judicial proceedings, subject to certain conditions such as allowing the amendment should not result in injustice to the other side; normally a clear admission made conferring certain right on a plaintiff is not allowed to be withdrawn by way of amendment by a defendant resulting in prejudice to such a right of the plaintiff, depending on the facts and circumstances of a given case. In certain situations, a time-barred claim cannot be allowed to be raised by proposing an amendment to take away the valuable accrued right of a party. However, mere delay in making an amendment application itself is not enough to refuse amendment, as the delay can be compensated in terms of money. Amendment is to be allowed when it does not cause serious prejudice to the opposite side. This Court in a recent judgment in B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai after referring to a number of decisions, in para 3 has stated, thus: (SCC p. 715) "3. The purpose and object of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC is to allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just. The power to allow the amendment is wide and can be exercised at any stage of the proceedings in the interests of justice on the basis of guidelines laid down by various High Courts and this Court. It is true that the amendment cannot be claimed as a matter of right and under all circumstances. But it is equally true that the courts while deciding such prayers should not adopt a hypertechnical approach. Liberal approach should be the general rule particularly in cases where the other side can be compensated with the 6 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.P. No.1396/2019 costs. Technicalities of law should not be permitted to hamper the courts in the administration of justice between the parties. Amendments are allowed in the pleadings to avoid uncalled-for multiplicity of litigation."
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 252 - Full Document

Kisandas Rupchand And Ors. vs Rachappa Vithoba Shilvant And Ors. on 2 July, 1909

"8. The principal reasons that have led to the rule last mentioned are, first, that the object of Courts and rules of procedure is to decide the rights of the parties and not to punish them for their mistakes (Cropper v. Smith, (1984) 26 Ch D 700 (710-711) and secondly, that a party is strictly not entitled to rely on the statute of limitation when what is sought to be brought in by the amendment can be said in substance to be already in the pleading sought to be amended (Kisandas Rupchand v. Rachappa Vithoba, (1909) ILR 33 Bom 644 at p. 651, approved in Pirgonda Hongonda Patil v. Kalgonda Shidgonda, 1957 SCR 595 (603): (AIR 1957 SC 363 at p. 366)."
Bombay High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 118 - Full Document
1