Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.23 seconds)
Ambika Gruh Udhyog Through Its Partners vs Heirs Of Decd. Pankajbhai Ambalal on 25 April, 2023 cites

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

8. The original provision was deleted by Amendment Act 46 of 1999, however, it has again been restored by Amendment Act 22 of 2002 but with an added proviso to prevent application for amendment being allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial. The above proviso, to some extent, curtails absolute discretion to allow amendment at any stage. At present, if application is filed after commencement of trial, it has to be shown that in spite of due diligence, it could not have been sought earlier. The object of the rule is that Courts should try the merits of the case that come before them and should, consequently, allow all amendments that may be necessary for determining the real question in controversy between the parties provided it does not cause injustice or prejudice to the other side. This Court, in a series of decisions has held that the power to allow the amendment is wide and can be exercised Page 13 of 26 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 27 20:49:40 IST 2023 C/SCA/2615/2023 ORDER DATED: 25/04/2023 at any stage of the proceeding in the interest of justice. The main purpose of allowing the amendment is to minimize the litigation and the plea that the relief sought by way of amendment was barred by time is to be considered in the light of the facts and circumstances of each case. The above principles have been reiterated by this Court in J. Samuel and Others vs. Gattu Mahesh and Others, (2012) 2 SCC 300 and Rameshkumar Agarwal vs. Rajmala Exports Pvt. Ltd. and Others, (2012) 5 SCC 337. Keeping the above principles in mind, let us consider whether the appellants have made out a case for amendment.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 429 - P Sathasivam - Full Document

Rameshkumar Agarwal vs Rajmala Exports P.Ltd.& Ors on 30 March, 2012

8. The original provision was deleted by Amendment Act 46 of 1999, however, it has again been restored by Amendment Act 22 of 2002 but with an added proviso to prevent application for amendment being allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial. The above proviso, to some extent, curtails absolute discretion to allow amendment at any stage. At present, if application is filed after commencement of trial, it has to be shown that in spite of due diligence, it could not have been sought earlier. The object of the rule is that Courts should try the merits of the case that come before them and should, consequently, allow all amendments that may be necessary for determining the real question in controversy between the parties provided it does not cause injustice or prejudice to the other side. This Court, in a series of decisions has held that the power to allow the amendment is wide and can be exercised Page 13 of 26 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 27 20:49:40 IST 2023 C/SCA/2615/2023 ORDER DATED: 25/04/2023 at any stage of the proceeding in the interest of justice. The main purpose of allowing the amendment is to minimize the litigation and the plea that the relief sought by way of amendment was barred by time is to be considered in the light of the facts and circumstances of each case. The above principles have been reiterated by this Court in J. Samuel and Others vs. Gattu Mahesh and Others, (2012) 2 SCC 300 and Rameshkumar Agarwal vs. Rajmala Exports Pvt. Ltd. and Others, (2012) 5 SCC 337. Keeping the above principles in mind, let us consider whether the appellants have made out a case for amendment.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 46 - P Sathasivam - Full Document

Mr. Vijay Gupta vs Mr. Gagninder Kr. Gandhi & Ors. on 4 July, 2022

(xi) Where the amendment is sought before commencement of trial, the court is required to be liberal in its approach. The court is required to bear in mind the fact that the opposite party would have a chance to meet the case set up in amendment. As such, where the amendment does not result in irreparable prejudice to the opposite party, or divest the opposite party of an advantage which it had secured as a result of an admission by the party seeking amendment, the amendment is required to be allowed. Equally, where Page 24 of 26 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 27 20:49:40 IST 2023 C/SCA/2615/2023 ORDER DATED: 25/04/2023 the amendment is necessary for the court to effectively adjudicate on the main issues in controversy between the parties, the amendment should be allowed. (See Vijay Gupta v. Gagninder Kr. Gandhi and Ors., 2022 SCC OnLine Del 1897) : (AIROnline 2022 Del 1797)."
Delhi High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 99 - C H Shankar - Full Document
1