Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 43 (0.69 seconds)Article 227 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Co-Operative Societies Act, 1912
Heeralal vs Kalyan Mal & Ors on 19 November, 1997
Sukhdev Singh (1987) 1 SCC 727, M/s. Modi Spinning & Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. v. Ladha Ram & Co. , and Heeralal v. Kalyan Mal and also was in error in allowing the petition making use of some of the observations in Usha Balashaheb Swami v. Kiran Appaso Swami which have no application to the facts of this case. He prepared a chart showing the pleas intended to be taken by the defendants in the proposed additional written statement in I.A. Nos. 629 of 2007; 715 of 2007 and 716 of 2000 respectively and the pleas in the additional written statement sought to be filed by them in I.A. No. 416 of 2000, which was dismissed to show that the pleas intended to be taken earlier and which were not permitted to be taken earlier and the pleas now sought to be taken are almost similar, which is appended to this common order as an annexure.
Usha Balashaheb Swami & Ors vs Kiran Appaso Swami & Ors on 18 April, 2007
Taking support from the observations made in Usha Balashaheb case (5 supra) that principles that are to be applied to petitions for amendment of plaint and written statement would be different and that addition of a new ground of defence, or substituting or altering a defence, or taking of inconsistent pleas in written statement can be allowed as long as they do not cause prejudice to the plaintiff, he contended that though some of the pleas intended to be taken by the first defendant by way of amendment may be inconsistent with the plea taken in the written statement filed earlier the trial Court did not commit an error in allowing the petitions for amendment. It is his contention that inasmuch as fraud vitiates all judicial acts, fraud played on the defendants by the plaintiff in connivance with their earlier counsel can be brought to the notice of the Court at any time, even by seeking an amendment to the written statement filed by them, so that there would be record to show that fraud was played on the defendants by the plaintiff and their earlier counsel.
Sampath Kumar vs Ayyakannu And Anr on 13 September, 2002
9. The main contention of Sri I.V. Radha Krishna Murthy, learned Counsel for the first defendant, is inasmuch as the written statement filed by the defendants does not contain admissions which are favourable to the plaintiff, withdrawal of which would not cause prejudice to the plaintiff, and as it is not the case of the plaintiff that it has any registered sale deed in respect of the plaint schedule property in its favour and as the title to immovable property worth more than Rs. 100/- would not get transferred on mere admissions, merely because of the admission in the written statement that plaintiff acquired title to the plaint schedule property, the plaintiff would not become the owner thereof. It is his contention that the defendants, immediately after coming to know about the fraud played on them by their previous counsel, filed I.A. No. 2217 of 1995 seeking permission of the Court to change their counsel and as it is their previous counsel that dragged on that petition which was ultimately allowed on 07.02.2000, and as the first defendant thereafter was advised to file a petition seeking leave to file additional written statement, and to strike out some paragraphs in the earlier written statement, he filed IA. Nos. 415 and 416 of 2000 and as final orders in those petitions were passed only on 15.03.2007, first defendant filed this petition seeking amendment of the plaint (sic. written statement) and so it cannot be said that there was any wilful delay on the part of the first defendant in filing the petition for amendment of the written statement. Relying on Sampath Kumar v. Ayyakannu , where it is held that the delay of 11 years in filing the application for amendment of pleadings by itself is not a ground for rejecting the application, as question of delay should not be decided by calculating the period from the date of institution of the suit only, but the stage up to which the hearing in the suit has proceeded also, he contended that in the circumstances of this case it cannot be said that there is any wilful delay on the part of the first defendant in filing the petition, and so delay per se is not a ground for rejecting the petition.
Nagubai Ammal & Others vs B. Shama Rao & Others on 26 April, 1956
Relying on Nagubai Ammal v. B. Shama Rao he contended that admissions are not conclusive, as to the truth of the matters stated therein it is only a piece of evidence, the weight to be attached to which would depend on the circumstances under which it is made, and can also be shown to be erroneous or untrue, so long as the person to whom it was made has not acted upon it to his detriment, first defendant has a right to withdraw the admission said to have been made by him in the written statement, after coming to know that it was the result of fraud played on him by his earlier counsel in collusion with the plaintiff.
Shri Kishori Lal vs Mst. Chaltibai on 1 December, 1958
Relying on Kishori Lal v. Mr. Chaltibal and Narayan Bhagwantrao Gosavi Balajiwale v. Gopal Vinayak Gosavi he contended that inasmuch as admissions only shifts the onus on to the person admitting the fact, and their maker has the liberty to prove that they are mistaken or are untrue, and in cases where the truth is known to both parties the principle stated in Chandra Kunwar v. Narpat Singh ILR 29 ALL 184 [PC] would not apply, and as the plaintiff does have knowledge that the written statement filed by the first defendant was the result of the fraud played on the first defendant by him in connivance with the earlier counsel for the first defendant, first defendant has a right to withdraw the admission made in the written statement because the plaintiff did not at any time thereafter act on the admission allegedly made by the defendants in their written statement.
Narayan Bhagwantrao Gosavi Balajiwale vs Gopal Vinayak Gosavi And Ors. on 22 September, 1959
Relying on Sita Ram Bhau Patil v. Ramchandra Nago Patil , where it is held that though admissions, in view of Sections 17 and 21 of the Evidence Act, are substantive evidence by themselves, they are not conclusive proof of the matters admitted, Dattatraya v. Rangnath Gopalrao Kawathekar where it is held that admission is a piece of evidence and that it is open to the person who made the admission to prove that those admissions are not true, and the observations in Narayan Bhagwantrao Gosavi Balajiwale case (9 supra), United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Samir Chandra Chaudhary , where it is held that admissions are not conclusive proof of the facts admitted and may be explained or shown to be wrong and, on Balraj Taneja v. Sunil Madan , where it is held that notwithstanding the admissions made by the defendant in his written statement, the Court can require the plaintiff to prove the facts pleaded by him in the plaint in view of Section 58 of the Evidence Act and Rule 5(1) of Order 8 CPC, plaintiff would not in any way be prejudiced by the defendants taking a plea that the admission allegedly made in their written statement, as a result of the fraud on them, is a wrong statement and that they never intended to make such admission and that fact can be established by them adducing evidence during trial because the Court at any stage of the suit can grant leave to amend the pleadings by relying on L.J. Leach and Co. Ltd. v. Messrs.
Rani Chandra Kunwar vs Chaudhuri Narpat Singh And Raja Makund ... on 14 December, 1906
Relying on Kishori Lal v. Mr. Chaltibal and Narayan Bhagwantrao Gosavi Balajiwale v. Gopal Vinayak Gosavi he contended that inasmuch as admissions only shifts the onus on to the person admitting the fact, and their maker has the liberty to prove that they are mistaken or are untrue, and in cases where the truth is known to both parties the principle stated in Chandra Kunwar v. Narpat Singh ILR 29 ALL 184 [PC] would not apply, and as the plaintiff does have knowledge that the written statement filed by the first defendant was the result of the fraud played on the first defendant by him in connivance with the earlier counsel for the first defendant, first defendant has a right to withdraw the admission made in the written statement because the plaintiff did not at any time thereafter act on the admission allegedly made by the defendants in their written statement.