Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.24 seconds)
S.Sathish vs Dr.Sumathi on 20 April, 2010 cites

Gautam Sarup vs Leela Jetly And Ors on 7 March, 2008

16.It has been held in the judgment reported in 2008(7)SCC 85, in the case of Gautam Sarup vs. Leela Jetly and others which affirmed the principles laid down in Modi Spg. & Wvg. Mills Co., Ltd., vs. Ladha Raman & Co.[1976(4)SCC 320] held as follows; "It is true that inconsistent pleas can be made in pleadings but the effect of substitution of paras 25 and 26 is not making inconsistent and alternative pleadings but it is seeking to displace the plaintiff completely from the admissions made by the defendants in the written statement. If such amendments are allowed the plaintiff will be irretrievably prejudiced by being denied the opportunity of extracting the admission from the defendants. The High Court rightly rejected the application for amendment and agreed with the trial Court.
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 227 - S B Sinha - Full Document

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

21.The Honourable Supreme Court in the judgment reported in 2009(7)MLJ 1081 [SC], in the case of Olympic Industries vs. Mulla Hussainy Bhai Mulla Akerally and others held that introducing new ground of defence in additional counter statement is not ground for dismissing application so long as same does not result in causing grave injustice and irretrievable prejudice to plaintiff.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 51 - T Chatterjee - Full Document

Usha Balashaheb Swami & Ors vs Kiran Appaso Swami & Ors on 18 April, 2007

Therefore, when the admissions made earlier were allowed to be taken back by reason of the amendment, the plaintiffs will be irretrievably prejudiced and in such cases, the defendant should not be allowed to amend the written statement by deleting admission made earlier and to introduce a new case. This was explained in the case of Usha Balashabeh Swami and others vs. Kiran Appaso Swami and others [2007(5)SCC 602]:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 395 - T Chatterjee - Full Document

Gurusamy Naicker And Others vs G. Jayaraman And Others on 25 April, 1995

22.In the judgment reported in 1999(3) CTC 52, in the case of Subramanian and three others vs. Jayaraman, it has been held that subsequent pleadings by defendant even though contradictory to the original written statement, could be taken in the form of additional written as plea of res-judicaita and estoppel are legal pleas and cannot be seriously objected and to give a fair trial by affording adequate opportunities to both parties it is required that the grant of leave for filing additional written statement is just and necessary.
Madras High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 18 - Full Document

Baldev Singh & Ors. Etc vs Manohar Singh & Anr. Etc on 3 August, 2006

25.In this case, by reason of the stand taken by the revision petitioners in the additional written statement, no prejudice is caused to the plaintiff and as a matter of fact, the plea taken in the written statement only supports the case of the plaintiffs. The suit was filed by the plaintiffs for partition and in the additional written statement, the revision petitioners did not change their stand regarding the status of the plaintiffs. In the additional written statement, the defendants 1 and 2 did not state that the plaintiffs are also entitled to a share in the properties. Only in respect of the Item No.3 of the schedule properties, a different stand has been taken by the revision petitioners. Having regard to the facts of this case even assuming that the stand taken by the revision petitioners is accepted that will not help the plaintiff to get the decree for partition and it may affect the rights of the respondents 4 and 5. Admittedly, the 3rd item of the property was in the name of the deceased Dr.Selvaraj and even assuming that the sale by the defendants 1 and 2 viz., the revision petitioners herein through their power agent viz., 4th respondent is valid, that will not prejudice the right of the plaintiffs, if the plaintiffs were able to prove that the first plaintiff is the wife and the 2nd plaintiff was borne to Dr.Selvaraj and in that case they are entitled to claim . share.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 542 - Full Document

Damayanthi Kailasam vs Mrs.D.F.Philips on 7 March, 2007

10.It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners that the defendants are entitled to take mutually destructive plea and the plea taken in the additional written statement is not destructive in nature and in the additional written statement, they wanted to explain certain facts which came to their knowledge latter and the Courts have held that liberal approach must be taken in the matter of receipt of the additional written statement and hence, the lower Court erred in dismissing the application. They also relied upon the judgment of this Honourable Court reported in 2007(2) CTC 813, in the case of Damayanthi Kailasam vs. Mrs.D.F.Philips and 3 others, in 2009(7)MLJ 1081(SC), in the case of Olympic Industries vs. Mulla Hussainy Bhai Mulla Akberally and others, in 2007(5) CTC 722, in the case of Muthuraman vs. Muthukumaran, in 2007(1) LW 429, in the case of Thiyagarajan vs. Manivannan and in 2007(4) MLJ 1098 in the case of S.Suresh vs. Sivabalakannan and others.
Madras High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 7 - S A Kumar - Full Document

Thiyagarajan vs Manivannan on 15 September, 2006

10.It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners that the defendants are entitled to take mutually destructive plea and the plea taken in the additional written statement is not destructive in nature and in the additional written statement, they wanted to explain certain facts which came to their knowledge latter and the Courts have held that liberal approach must be taken in the matter of receipt of the additional written statement and hence, the lower Court erred in dismissing the application. They also relied upon the judgment of this Honourable Court reported in 2007(2) CTC 813, in the case of Damayanthi Kailasam vs. Mrs.D.F.Philips and 3 others, in 2009(7)MLJ 1081(SC), in the case of Olympic Industries vs. Mulla Hussainy Bhai Mulla Akberally and others, in 2007(5) CTC 722, in the case of Muthuraman vs. Muthukumaran, in 2007(1) LW 429, in the case of Thiyagarajan vs. Manivannan and in 2007(4) MLJ 1098 in the case of S.Suresh vs. Sivabalakannan and others.
Madras High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 16 - S Rajeswaran - Full Document

Vidyabai & Ors vs Padmalatha & Anr on 12 December, 2008

The learned counsel appearing for the respondents 4 and 5 also relied upon the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in 2008(7)SCC 85, in the case of Gautham Sarup vs. Leela Jetly and others and the judgment reported in 2009(2) SCC 409, in the case of Vidyabai and others vs. Padmalatha and another, in support of their contention. It is further contended by them that in the original written statement, the revision petitioners have admitted that the sale by the 4th defendant as their power agent in favour of the 5th respondent in respect of Item No.5 is a genuine sale deed and it is an admission by the revision petitioners and that admission cannot be allowed to be erased and the plea taken in the additional written statement is not an alternative relief, but it is the mutually destructive plea taken by the revision petitioners and therefore, the revision petitioners are not entitled to file the additional written statement.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 685 - S B Sinha - Full Document
1   2 Next