Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.29 seconds)Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal & Ors vs K.K. Modi & Ors on 22 March, 2006
In RAJESH KUMAR AGGARWAL AND OTHERS Vs. K.K. MODI AND OTHERS (2006 [4] SCC 385), it is held as follows:
Mount Mary Enterprises vs M/S.Jivratna Medi Treat Pvt Ltd on 30 January, 2015
In MOUNT MARY ENTERPRISES vs. JIVRATNA MEDI TREAT PRIVATE LIMITED (2015 [4] SCC 182), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as follows, in paragraphs 7 and 10:
Pirgonda Hongonda Patil vs Kalgonda Shidgonda Patil And Others on 7 February, 1957
In Prigonda Hongonda Patil v. Kalgonda Shidgonda Patil 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."
Palaniammal vs V.K. Ramanathan And 4 Ors. on 13 February, 2002
In the case of PALANIAMMAL vs. V.K.RAMANATHAN AND OTHERS [2002 (1) CTC 618], this Court has held as follows:
Article 227 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
1