Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.27 seconds)Sampath Kumar vs Ayyakannu And Anr on 13 September, 2002
In the case of Sampath
Kumar Vs. Ayyakannu & Another, AIR 2002 SC 3369, it was held
thus:
Pankaja & Anr vs Yellappa (D) By Lrs. & Ors on 5 August, 2004
7. The plea of the learned counsel for the respondent regarding
limitation, finds answer in the observation of the Supreme Court in the
case of Pankaja & Anr. Vs. Yellappa (D) By LRs & Ors., V (2004)
SLT 30 in the following words:
T.N. Alloy Foundry Co. Ltd vs T.N. Electricity Board And Ors on 12 February, 2004
14. This view of this Court has, since, been followed by a
3 Judge Bench of this Court in the case of T.N. Alloy
Foundry Co. Ltd. Vs. T.N. Electricity Board & Ors. 2004
(3) SCC 392. Therefore, an application for amendment of
the pleading should not be disallowed merely because it is
opposed on the ground that the same is barred by
limitation, on the contrary, application will have to be
considered bearing in mind the discretion that is vested
with the Court in allowing or disallowing such
amendment in the interest of justice.
Ragu Thilak D. John vs S.Rayappan & Others on 23 January, 2001
In view of the legal proposition as enunciated above, and noting
that the basis of the reliefs of the injunctions which were sought was
the inspection and the consequent raising of bill as also disconnection,
it can be said that the necessary factual basis has already been laid
down in the plaint. The bill in question was issued by the respondent
itself and thus, there was neither any surprise to it, nor any prejudice to
be caused by allowing the amendment, which is found to be relevant
and necessary for the just decision of the case, and to avoid multiple
litigations.
Article 227 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
1