Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.34 seconds)The Trade And Merchandise Marks Act, 1958
M/S. Revajeetu Builders & Developers vs M/S. Narayanaswamy & Sons & Ors on 9 October, 2009
In Revajeetu Builders & Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons
[(2009) 10 SCC 84 : (2009) 4 SCC (Civ) 37] this Court once again
considered the scope of amendment of pleadings. In para 63, it
concluded as follows: (SCC p. 102)
"Factors to be taken into consideration while dealing with
applications for amendments
Section 151 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Nichhalbhai Vallabhai And Ors. vs Jaswantlal Zinabhai And Ors. on 23 August, 1965
In Nichhalbhai v. Jaswantlal, AIR 1966 SC 997 their Lordships of the
Supreme Court observed that "if the amendment is refused the plaintiff
may have to bring another suit and the object of the rule for allowing
amendments to the plaint is to avoid multiplicity of suits."
Surendra Kumar Sharma vs Makhan Singh on 18 September, 2009
(i) Surender Kumar Sharma v. Makhan Singh [(2009) 10 SCC 626 :
(2009) 4 SCC (Civ) 294] , at para 5 : (SCC p. 627)
"5. As noted hereinearlier, the prayer for amendment was refused by the
High Court on two grounds. So far as the first ground is concerned i.e.
the prayer for amendment was a belated one, we are of the view that
even if it was belated, then also, the question that needs to be decided is
to see whether by allowing the amendment, the real controversy
between the parties may be resolved. It is well settled that under Order
6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, wide powers and unfettered
discretion have been conferred on the court to allow amendment of the
pleadings to a party in such a manner and on such terms as it appears
to the court just and proper. Even if, such an application for
amendment of the plaint was filed belatedly, such belated amendment
cannot be refused if it is found that for deciding the real controversy
between the parties, it can be allowed on payment of costs. Therefore,
in our view, mere delay and laches in making the application for
amendment cannot be a ground to refuse the amendment."
Pirgonda Hongonda Patil vs Kalgonda Shidgonda Patil And Others on 7 February, 1957
In Pirgonda Hongonda Patil v. Kalgonda Shidgonda Patil [AIR 1957 SC
363] which still holds the field, it was held that all amendments ought to
be allowed which satisfy the two conditions : (a) of not working injustice
to the other side; and (b) of being necessary for the purpose of
determining the real questions in controversy between the parties.
Amendments should be refused only where the other party cannot be
placed in the same position as if the pleading had been originally
correct, but the amendment would cause him an injury which could not
be compensated in costs."
Usha Devi vs Rijwan Ahamd & Ors on 17 January, 2008
(iii) Usha Devi v. Rijwan Ahamd [(2008) 3 SCC 717 : (2008) 1 SCC
(Civ) 922] , at para 13 : (SCC p. 722)
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CS(COMM) 379/2022 Page 11 of 16
By:AMAN UNIYAL
Signing Date:29.10.2024
21:53:47
"13.
Baldev Singh & Ors. Etc vs Manohar Singh & Anr. Etc on 3 August, 2006
Mr Bharuka, on the other hand, invited our attention to another
decision of this Court in Baldev Singh v. Manohar Singh [(2006) 6 SCC
498] . In para 17 of the decision, it was held and observed as follows :
Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal & Ors vs K.K. Modi & Ors on 22 March, 2006
(iv) Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal v. K.K. Modi [(2006) 4 SCC 385] , at paras
15 & 16 : (SCC pp. 392-93)
"15. The object of the rule is that the courts should try the merits of the
case that come before them and should, consequently, allow all
amendments that may be necessary for determining the real question in
controversy between the parties provided it does not cause injustice or
prejudice to the other side.