Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.88 seconds)Section 115 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Union Of India vs Pramod Gupta (D) By Lrs. & Ors on 7 September, 2005
"75. It may be true that not only the memorandum of
appeal but also the reference was amended. Mr. Rao pointed out that
the necessary amendments have been carried out in the application
for reference or memorandum of appeal. In terms of Order VI Rule 18
of the Code of Civil Procedure, such amendments are required to be
carried out in the pleadings by a party who has obtained leave to
amend his pleadings within the time granted therefore and if no time
was specified then within fourteen days from the date of passing of
the order. The consequence of failure to amend the pleadings within
the period specified therein as laid down in Order VI Rule 18 of the
Code is that the party shall not be permitted to amend his pleadings
thereafter unless the time is extended by the court. It is not in dispute
that such an order extending the time specified in Order VI Rule 18
has not been passed."
Nair Service Society Ltd vs Rev. Father K. C. Alexander & Ors on 12 February, 1968
In Nair Service Society Limited's case (supra), the Honourable
Supreme Court held that procedural laws are designed to facilitate
justice and that the Court possesses sufficient power to extend
time in appropriate cases to avoid injustice. The relevant
paragraph is extracted hereunder:
Rani Choudhury vs Lt. Col. Suraj Jit Choudhury on 24 August, 1982
(g) The learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance
upon the decision in Rani Choudhury v. Suraj Jit Choudhury 4, to
contend that once an appeal against an ex parte decree has been
disposed of on any ground other than withdrawal, an application
under Order IX Rule 13 of the CPC would not be maintainable. By
placing reliance on the said judgment, it is sought to be contended
4 (1982) 2 SCC 596
-16-
VRKR,J
CRP Nos.2487, 2509 & 3913_2023
that procedural defaults have definite consequences and cannot be
lightly ignored.
Solavaiammal vs Ezhumalai Goundar on 16 November, 2011
(h) Reliance is also placed on Solavaiamal v. Ezhumalai
Gounder 5, to contend that though, ordinarily, under Order VI Rule
17 of the CPC, only a party to the pleadings may seek amendment,
such principle is not to be applied rigidly in suits for partition. It is
submitted that in partition proceedings, both the plaintiff and the
defendant stand on an equal footing and are entitled to seek
appropriate reliefs. Therefore, a liberal and pragmatic approach is
required while considering amendment applications in such suits,
so as to ensure complete and effective adjudication of the disputes
between the parties.
Kranti Associates (I) Pvt. Ltd vs Masood Ahmad Khan on 6 July, 2007
In Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. v. Masood Ahmed Khan 6, the
Honourable Supreme Court held that reasons are the heartbeat of
every conclusion and that absence of reasons renders the order
unsustainable.
Siemens Engineering & Manufacturing ... vs Union Of India & Anr on 30 April, 1976
38. Similarly, in Siemens Engineering & Manufacturing Co. v.
Union of India 7, it was held that every quasi-judicial order must be
supported by reasons, as this requirement is a basic principle of
natural justice.
Section 28 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Sudhamayee Pattnaik vs Bibhu Prasad Sahoo on 16 September, 2022
In Sudhamayee Pattnaik's case (supra), the Honourable
Supreme Court held that a party cannot be added merely for
convenience and that the test is whether such party is necessary
for effective adjudication. A "necessary party" is one without whom
no effective decree can be passed, while a "proper party" is one
whose presence enables the Court to completely and affectively
adjudicate upon the disputes.