Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 25 (0.29 seconds)Article 227 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
M/S. Revajeetu Builders & Developers vs M/S. Narayanaswamy & Sons & Ors on 9 October, 2009
23- In the case of Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy and Sons and others, (2009) 10 SCC 84 (Paragraph Nos.
Mahila Ramkali Devi And Ors vs Nandram Thr. Lrs.& Ors on 14 May, 2015
(Emphasis supplied by me)
26- In the case of Mahila Ramkali Devi and others (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court clearly held that the Court always gives relief to amend the pleading of the party, unless it is satisfied that the party applying was acting malafide or that by his blunder he had caused injury to his opponent which cannot be compensated for by an order of cost.
Ganga Bai vs Vijay Kumar & Ors on 9 April, 1974
27- In the case of Ganga Bai v. Vijay Kumar (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court while rejecting an amendment application filed after more than seven years to challenge a preliminary decree; mandated that undisputedly power to allow an amendment is wide and may at any stage be appropriately exercised in the interest of justice notwithstanding the law of limitation, but the exercise of such far-reaching discretionary power is governed by judicial considerations and wider the discretion, greater ought to be the care and circumspection on the part of the Court.
Usha Balashaheb Swami & Ors vs Kiran Appaso Swami & Ors on 18 April, 2007
24- In the case of Usha Balashaheb Swami and others v. Kiran Appaso Swami and others, AIR (2007)5 SCC 602, Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the principles for amendment in plaint and written statement and held as under :
J.Samuel & Ors vs Gattu Mhesh & Ors on 16 January, 2012
(Emphasis supplied by me)
31- Applying on the facts of the present case, the principles of law laid down in the afore-noted judgments, I find that the amendment sought by the defendant-petitioner after about 26 years of filing of the written statement and rejection of his application 14-Ga, was not bonafide, but it was malafide attempt with an intent to delay disposal of the case. Under the circumstances, the rejection of the amendment application is wholly justified.
Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal vs National Building Material Supply, ... on 17 March, 1969
35 to 64), Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to the law laid down by it in L.J. Leach & Co. Ltd. v. Jardine Skinner & Co., AIR 1957 SC 357, Pirgonda Hongonda Patil v. Kalgonda Shidgonda Patil, AIR 1957 SC 363, Purushottam Umedbhai & Co.v. Manilal & Sons, AIR 1961 325, Ganesh Trading Co. v. Moji Ram, (1978)2 SCC 91, Laxmidas Dayabhai Kabrawala v. Nanabhai Chunilal Kabrawala,AIR 1964 SC 11, Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal v. Natioinal Building Matrial Supply, (1969) 1 SCC 869, Ganga Bai v. Vijay Kumar (1974) 2 SCC 393, Haridas Aildas Thadani v. Godrej Rustom Kermani (1984) 1 SCC 668, B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai, (2000) 1 SCC 712 and in the case of Suraj Prakash Bhasin v. Raj Rani Bhasin, (1981) 3 SCC 652 and after emphasizing on the conditions of grant of amendment namely, whether the amendment is necessary to decide real controversy, no prejudice or injustice is caused to the other party and compensation in terms of cost; concluded as under :
Haridas Aildas Thadani And Ors. vs Godrej Rustom Kermani on 16 November, 1981
35 to 64), Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to the law laid down by it in L.J. Leach & Co. Ltd. v. Jardine Skinner & Co., AIR 1957 SC 357, Pirgonda Hongonda Patil v. Kalgonda Shidgonda Patil, AIR 1957 SC 363, Purushottam Umedbhai & Co.v. Manilal & Sons, AIR 1961 325, Ganesh Trading Co. v. Moji Ram, (1978)2 SCC 91, Laxmidas Dayabhai Kabrawala v. Nanabhai Chunilal Kabrawala,AIR 1964 SC 11, Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal v. Natioinal Building Matrial Supply, (1969) 1 SCC 869, Ganga Bai v. Vijay Kumar (1974) 2 SCC 393, Haridas Aildas Thadani v. Godrej Rustom Kermani (1984) 1 SCC 668, B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai, (2000) 1 SCC 712 and in the case of Suraj Prakash Bhasin v. Raj Rani Bhasin, (1981) 3 SCC 652 and after emphasizing on the conditions of grant of amendment namely, whether the amendment is necessary to decide real controversy, no prejudice or injustice is caused to the other party and compensation in terms of cost; concluded as under :
B.K-Narayana Pillai vs Pararneswaran Pillai & Anr on 13 December, 1999
35 to 64), Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to the law laid down by it in L.J. Leach & Co. Ltd. v. Jardine Skinner & Co., AIR 1957 SC 357, Pirgonda Hongonda Patil v. Kalgonda Shidgonda Patil, AIR 1957 SC 363, Purushottam Umedbhai & Co.v. Manilal & Sons, AIR 1961 325, Ganesh Trading Co. v. Moji Ram, (1978)2 SCC 91, Laxmidas Dayabhai Kabrawala v. Nanabhai Chunilal Kabrawala,AIR 1964 SC 11, Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal v. Natioinal Building Matrial Supply, (1969) 1 SCC 869, Ganga Bai v. Vijay Kumar (1974) 2 SCC 393, Haridas Aildas Thadani v. Godrej Rustom Kermani (1984) 1 SCC 668, B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai, (2000) 1 SCC 712 and in the case of Suraj Prakash Bhasin v. Raj Rani Bhasin, (1981) 3 SCC 652 and after emphasizing on the conditions of grant of amendment namely, whether the amendment is necessary to decide real controversy, no prejudice or injustice is caused to the other party and compensation in terms of cost; concluded as under :