Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (0.20 seconds)Baldev Singh & Ors. Etc vs Manohar Singh & Anr. Etc on 3 August, 2006
61. We can also usefully refer to the judgment of this Court in Baldev Singh v. Manohar Singh [(2006) 6 SCC 498] for the same proposition. A perusal of the proposed amendment would show that it contains numerous averments. So far as the averments in the proposed amendments are concerned, at p. 12 of the order in para 22, the appellants admit that all the issues raised by way of proposed amendment in the written statement were taken before this Court in the appeal from order filed by the present defendants in the civil appeal filed before this Court and again in the special leave petition filed subsequently. As rightly pointed out by learned Senior Counsel, any section should not be so interpreted that part of it becomes otiose and meaningless and very often a proviso itself is read as a substantive provision it has to be given full effect."
Gautam Sarup vs Leela Jetly And Ors on 7 March, 2008
23. We agree with the position in Nagindas Ramdas [(1974) 1 SCC 242] and as endorsed in Gautam Sarup [Gautam Sarup v. Leela Jetly, (2008) 7 SCC 85] that a categorical admission made in the pleadings cannot be permitted to be withdrawn by way of an amendment.
The Code Of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002
Panchdeo Narain Srivastava vs Km. Jyoti Sahay And Anr. on 18 February, 1983
To that extent, the proposition of law that even an admission can be withdrawn, as held in Panchdeo Narain Srivastava[Panchdeo Narain Srivastava v. Jyoti Sahay, 1984 Supp SCC 594] , does not reflect the correct legal position and it is overruled.
Kailash vs Nanhku & Ors on 6 April, 2005
60. The above averment, in our opinion, does not satisfy the requirement of Order 6 Rule 17 without giving the particulars which would satisfy the requirement of law that the matters now sought to be introduced by the amendment could not have been raised earlier in spite of due diligence. As held by this Court in Kailash v. Nanhku [(2005) 4 SCC 480] the trial is deemed to commence when the issues are settled and the case is set down for recording of evidence.
Vidyabai & Ors vs Padmalatha & Anr on 12 December, 2008
In Vidyabai and others vs. Padmalatha and another, (2009) 2 SCC 409, the Apex Court categorically held that proviso to Order VI, Rule 17 is couched in a mandatory form, and court's jurisdiction to allow such an application is taken away unless the conditions precedent therefor are satisfied. Relevant Paras 10, 11 and 19 are extracted hereasunder:-
Sushil Kumar Jain vs Manoj Kumar & Anr on 5 May, 2009
15. Similarly, dealing with amendment of written statement in Sushil Kumar Jain vs Manoj Kumar and another, (2009) 14 SCC 38, the Apex Court held that the principle of amendment of a plaint and a written statement are not necessarily governed by exactly the same principle. In a case of amendment of written statement the courts would be liberal in allowing than that of a plaint as the question of prejudice would be far less but the court held that once the trial has commenced the proviso to Order VI, Rule 17 would be applicable.
Ram Niranjan Kajaria vs Sheo Prakash Kajaria & Ors on 18 September, 2015
In Ram Niranjan Kajaria vs. Sheo Prakash Kajaria and others, (2015) 10 SCC 203, the Apex Court relying upon its earlier judgment held as under:-
M/S. Revajeetu Builders & Developers vs M/S. Narayanaswamy & Sons & Ors on 9 October, 2009
It has been held as follows: (Revajeetu Builders case (2009) 10 SCC 84, SCC p. 102)
"63. On critically analysing both the English and Indian cases, some basic principles emerge which ought to be taken into consideration while allowing or rejecting the application for amendment: