Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.31 seconds)Article 227 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Ganga Bai vs Vijay Kumar & Ors on 9 April, 1974
19- 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.
Ganesh Trading Co vs Moji Ram on 25 January, 1978
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 :
Laxmidas Dahyabhai Kabarwala vs Nanabhai Chunilal Kabarwala And Ors on 27 March, 1963
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 :
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 :
M/S. Revajeetu Builders & Developers vs M/S. Narayanaswamy & Sons & Ors on 9 October, 2009
15- In the case of Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy and Sons and others, (2009) 10 SCC 84 (Paragraph Nos.
Suraj Prakash Bhasin vs Smt. Raj Rani Bhasin And Ors. on 29 April, 1980
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 :
Usha Balashaheb Swami & Ors vs Kiran Appaso Swami & Ors on 18 April, 2007
16- 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 :