Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.26 seconds)
M/S Delhi Automobiles & Ltd. vs Kishan Gopal Ahuja & Anr. on 17 February, 2011 cites

Gayathri Womens Welfare Association vs Gowramma & Anr on 11 January, 2011

Reliance has also been placed upon JT 2011 (1) SC 315 Gayathri Womens Welfare Association Vs. Gowramma & Anr. wherein the Apex Court had indicated that one of the circumstances which must be taken into consideration before an amendment is granted is the delay in making the application for such an amendment and if it is made, at the appellate stage, the reason why it was not made in the trial court. In this case, the amendment which had been permitted by the High Court of the counter claim had been set aside. 9 This is a second appeal Court. The date of filing of original written statement and the present application seeking an amendment shows that there was an intervening gap of more than one decade. RSA Nos.98/2008 Page 4 of 10 That apart as already noted supra, the amendments sought for clearly show that this is only a delaying tactic on the part of the appellant/defendant as the pleas now sought to be incorporated already form a part of his written statement; neither is there any submission nor there is new fact sought to be brought on record. There is also no explanation whatsoever on the point of delay. 10 There is no dispute that the amendment of pleadings can be allowed at any stage and if need be, even at the second appeal stage. However, each case depends upon on its facts; essential requisites are that the application must overcome the hurdle of delay in making the application; the reasons thereof should be given; there should be no prejudice to other side. None of these has been adhered to. There is not a single averment in the body of this application as to why this amendment was not sought earlier while the proceedings were pending in the trial court or even before the first appellate Court. That apart as already aforenoted this amendment would serve no purpose. 11 The result is that the application is liable to be dismissed. It is accordingly dismissed.
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 17 - S S Nijjar - Full Document

Olympic Industries vs Mulla Hussainy Bhai Mulla ... on 7 July, 2009

7 Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance upon AIR 2009 SC 2544 Sushil Kumar Jain Vs. Manoj Kumar & Anr. as also upon 30 2009 (9) Scale Olympic Industries Vs, Mulla Hussainy Bhai Mulla Akberally & Ors. to support his submissions that mere delay is not sufficient to refuse to allow amendment of pleadings; wherever a good case is made out, the court should allow the amendment. 8 Arguments have been countered by learned counsel for the respondent. Attention has been drawn to the proviso of Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the „Code‟) (which stood amended by the Amendment Act, 2002). It is pointed out that there is not a whisper in the present application that after the exercise of "due diligence", the defendant had been prevented from making this amendment in the courts below. It is submitted that this statutory provision itself bars the prayer made in the present application.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 51 - T Chatterjee - Full Document
1