Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 27 (0.23 seconds)G. Nagamma & Anr vs Siromanamma & Anr on 27 November, 1995
In G. Nagamma and Ors. v. Siromanamma and Anr. (14), the Hon'ble Apex Court held that in an application under Order 6 Rule 17, even an alternative relief can be sought; however, it should change the cause of action or materially affect the relief claimed earlier,
Charan Das vs Amir Khan on 6 July, 1920
(Charan-das v. Amir Khan, AIR 1921 PC 50; and L.J. Leach & Co. Ltd. v. Jardine Skinner & Co., AIR 1957 SC 357)."
L. J. Leach And Company Ltd vs Jardine Skinner And Co on 22 January, 1957
(Charan-das v. Amir Khan, AIR 1921 PC 50; and L.J. Leach & Co. Ltd. v. Jardine Skinner & Co., AIR 1957 SC 357)."
Gauri Shanker vs Hindustan Trust (Pvt.) Ltd. And Ors. on 27 April, 1972
In Gauri Shankar v. Hindustan Trust (Pvt) Ltd. (10), the Apex Court held that in case of gross delay, application for amendment must be rejected.
Union Of India vs Surjit Singh Atwal on 18 January, 1979
Same view had been reiterated in Union of India and Ors. v. Surjit SinghAtwal (11).
Radhika Devi vs Bajrangi Singh & Ors on 18 January, 1996
6. It is settled legal proposition that amendment sought time- barred, where the party acquires right by bar of limitation and if the same is sought to be taken away by amendment of pleadings, amendment in such circumstance must be refused. (Vide Radhika Devi v. Bajrangi Singh (12), and Dondapati Narayana Reddy v. Duggireddy Venkatanarayana Reddy (13).
Dondapati Narayana Reddy vs Duggireddy Venkatanarayana Reddy & Ors on 29 August, 2001
6. It is settled legal proposition that amendment sought time- barred, where the party acquires right by bar of limitation and if the same is sought to be taken away by amendment of pleadings, amendment in such circumstance must be refused. (Vide Radhika Devi v. Bajrangi Singh (12), and Dondapati Narayana Reddy v. Duggireddy Venkatanarayana Reddy (13).
Vineet Kumar vs Mangal Sain Wadhere on 5 January, 1984
In Vineet Kumar v. Mangal Sain Wadhera (15), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that normally amendment is not allowed if it changes the cause of action, but where the amendment does not constitute the addition of a new cause of action, or raises a new case, but amounts to not more than adding to the facts already on record, the amendment should be allowed even after the statutory period of limitation.
Pasupuleti Venkateswarlu vs The Motor & General Traders on 18 March, 1975
In Pasupuleti Venkateswaflu v. Motor & General Traders (16), the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under :-