Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.21 seconds)
Mukesh & Co. Tobacco Products Pvt. Ltd vs Gujarat State Forest Development ... on 12 October, 2011 cites

V.R. Nathan vs Mac Laboratories (P.) Ltd. on 5 August, 1974

16.2In V.R. Nathan v. Mac. Laboratories (P) Ltd. (AIR 1975 Madras 189), relied on by Mr. Thakkar, it was held that in a suit for injunction, amendment of plaint seeking relief of damages in lieu of or in addition to injunction cannot be refused. In the instant case, in a suit for declaration, injunction and specific performance, the plaintiff proposes to add a relief of recovery of money paid by the plaintiff to the defendants and damages for the same cause of action for which injunction is sought. It cannot be overlooked that the plaintiff does not seek any amendment other than the amendment in the relief clause.
Madras High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 11 - Full Document

Ganesh Trading Co vs Moji Ram on 25 January, 1978

16.4Mr. Thakkar then relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of M/s Ganesh Trading Co. v. Moji Ram [(1978) 2 SCC 91]. He submitted that the Apex Court has held that procedural law is intended to facilitate and not to obstruct the course of substantive justice. In that case, a question regarding amendment was considered and the Court observed that, if a plaintiff seeks to alter the cause of action itself and to introduce, indirectly, through an amendment of his pleadings, an entirely new or inconsistent cause of action, amounting virtually to the substitution of a new plaint or a new cause of action in place of what was originally there, the Court will refuse such amendment even if it amounts to depriving the party against which a suit is pending of any right which may have accrued in its favour due lapse of time. Mere failure to set out even an essential fact does not, by itself, constitute a new cause of action. A cause of action is constituted by the whole bundle of essential facts which the plaintiff must prove before he can succeed in his suit. It must be antecedent to the institution of the suit. If any essential fact is lacking from averments in the plaint, the cause of action will be defective. In that case, an attempt to supply the omission has been and could some times be viewed as equivalent to an introduction of a new cause of action. The Court observed that defective pleadings are generally curable if the cause of action sought to be brought out was not ab initio completely absent. Even very defective pleadeings may be permitted to be cured, so as to constitute a cause of action where there was none, provided necessary conditions such as payment of either any additional Court fees, which may be payable, or of costs of the other side are complied with. It is only if lapse of time has barred the remedy on a newly constituted cause of action that the Court should, ordinarily, refuse prayers for amendment of pleadings.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 329 - M H Beg - Full Document

M. L. Sethi vs R. P. Kapur on 19 July, 1972

In M.L. Sethi v. R.P. Kapur (AIR 1972 SCC 2379), the Apex Court held that "Section 115 empowers the High Court to satisfy itself on three matters, namely (a) that the order of the subordinate Court is within its jurisdiction; (b) that the case is one in which the Court ought to exercise jurisdiction; and (c) that in exercising jurisdiction the Court has not acted illegally, that is, in breach of some provision of law, or with material irregularity by committing some error of procedure in the course of the trial which is material in that it may have affected the ultimate decision. And if the High Court is satisfied on these three matters it has no power to interfere because it differs from the conclusions of the subordinate court on questions of fact or law." The Apex Court observed that an erroneous decision on a question of law reached by the subordinate Court which has no relation to question of jurisdiction of that Court cannot be corrected by the High Court under Section 115.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 119 - K K Mathew - Full Document

Nichhalbhai Vallabhai And Ors. vs Jaswantlal Zinabhai And Ors. on 23 August, 1965

In Nichhalbhai Vallabhai & Ors. v. Jaswantlal Zinabhai & Ors.(AIR 1966 SC 997), it was held that the amend was intended at avoiding multiplicity of suits and, therefore, it was rightly allowed. It may be noted that the decision was mainly based on the facts of that case and interpretation of the words used in the plaint was also taken into consideration. There cannot be any dispute about the principle that amendment should be allowed to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. But such amendments can be allowed provided the amendment sought for does not change the basic constitution, structure or fabric of the case of the party.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 37 - V Ramaswami - Full Document
1   2 Next