Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 20 (4.19 seconds)The Urban Land (Ceiling And Regulation) Act, 1976
Section 65 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Ganga Bai vs Vijay Kumar & Ors on 9 April, 1974
In Ganga Bai's case (supra), this Court has rightly
observed:
Ma Shwe Mya vs Maung Mo Hnaung on 26 January, 1921
26. When we apply the principle laid down by the above
judgments, the conclusion becomes irresistible that the
view taken by the High Court in the impugned judgment
cannot be said to be unjustified.
Kisandas Rupchand And Ors. vs Rachappa Vithoba Shilvant And Ors. on 2 July, 1909
41. Kisandas v. Rachappa Vithoba11 is probably the first
leading case decided by the High Court of Bombay under the
present Code of 1908. There, A, plaintiff, averred that in
pursuance of a partnership agreement, he delivered Rs.4001
worth of cloth to B, defendant, and sued for dissolution of
partnership and accounts. The trial court found that A
delivered the cloth worth Rs.4001 but held that there was
no partnership and the suit was not maintainable. In
appeal, A sought amendment of adding a prayer for the
recovery of Rs.4001. On that day, claim for recovery of
money was barred by limitation. The amendment was allowed
by the appellate court and the suit was decreed. B
challenged the decree. The High Court upheld the order and
dismissed the appeal. Referring to leading English
decisions on the point, Batchelor, J. stated:
Amulakchand Mewaram vs Babulal Kanalal Taliwala on 7 March, 1933
In Amulakchand Mewaram & Others v. Babulal Kanalal
Taliwala12, the Bombay High Court again had an occasion to
decide a case under Order VI Rule 17. In that case, the
Court approved the following observations of Beaumont, C.J.
and observed:
L. J. Leach And Company Ltd vs Jardine Skinner And Co on 22 January, 1957
In L.J. Leach & Co. Ltd. & Another v. Jardine,
Skinner & Co.13, a suit for damages for `conversion of
goods' filed by the plaintiff was decreed by the trial
court but the decree was set aside by the High Court. In
an appeal before this Court, the plaintiff applied for
amendment of the plaint by raising an alternative claim for
damages for breach of contract for `non-delivery of goods'.
The amendment was resisted by the defendant contending that
it sought to introduce a new cause of action which was
barred by limitation on the day the amendment was sought
and, hence, it would seriously prejudice the defendant.
Purushottam Umedbhai & Co vs M/S. Manilal And Sons (In Connected ... on 7 October, 1960
In similar circumstances, in a subsequent case
Ganesh Trading Co. v. Moji Ram16, this Court reiterated the
law laid down in Purushottam Umedbhai & Co. (supra). The
Court observed:
Usha Balashaheb Swami & Ors vs Kiran Appaso Swami & Ors on 18 April, 2007
In the same judgment of Usha Balashaheb
Swami (supra), the Court dealt with a number of judgments
of this Court and laid down that the prayer for amendment
of the plaint and a prayer for amendment of the written
statement stand on different footings. The general
principle that amendment of pleadings cannot be allowed so
as to alter materially or substitute the cause of action or
the nature of claim applies to amendments to plaint. It
has no counterpart in the principles relating to amendment
of the written statement. Therefore, addition of a new
ground of defence or substituting or altering a defence or
taking inconsistent pleas in the written statement would
not be objectionable while adding, altering or substituting
a new cause of action in the plaint may be objectionable.