Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.31 seconds)Surendra Kumar Sharma vs Makhan Singh on 18 September, 2009
In yet another case in Surendra Kumar Sharma Vs. Makhan
Singh reported in 2009 SAR (Civil) 967, the Apex Court has held that mere
12/23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P. (MD) No.1671 of 2014
delay in making the application for amendment cannot be ground to refuse the
amendment.
L.C. Hanumanthappa (Since ... vs H.B.Shivakumar on 26 August, 2015
29. Applying the law thus laid down by this Court to the facts of
this case, two things become clear. First, in the original written
statement itself dated 16th May, 1990, the defendant had clearly put the
plaintiff on notice that it had denied the plaintiffs title to the suit
property. A reading of an isolated para in the written statement, namely,
para 2 by the trial court on the facts of this case has been correctly
commented upon adversely by the High Court in the judgment under
appeal. The original written statement read as a whole unmistakably
indicates that the defendant had not accepted the plaintiffs title.
Vidyabai & Ors vs Padmalatha & Anr on 12 December, 2008
In Vidyabai & Ors. v. Padmalatha & Anr. [(2009) 2 SCC 409], the
Supreme Court of India observed in para 19 as under:
M.Revanna vs Anjanamma (Dead) By Lrs. on 14 February, 2019
In M.Revenna Vs. Anjanamma(Dead) By legal representatives
and others reported in 2019(4) SCC 332 it has been held as follows:
Baldev Singh & Ors. Etc vs Manohar Singh & Anr. Etc on 3 August, 2006
In Baldev Singh & Others Etc., Vs. Manohar Singh & Another. Etc.
reported in 2008 SAR (Civil) 658, it has been held by the Apex Court that merely
delay of three years in filing the application for amendment of written statement
could nto be a ground for rejection of the same when no serious prejudice is
shown to have been caused to the plaintiff and the plea of limitation can be
allowed to be raised as an additional evidence.
Thavittu Ponnu vs Devaki Ammal on 10 February, 2012
In Thavittu Ponnu Vs. Devaki Ammal and 2 others reported in
2012(2) MWN (Civil)113 a learned Judge of this court has held that an
application filed to amend the boundaries and extent of suit property filed before
completion of trial when the amendment was not to cause prejudice to either
parties and neither changes the character of the suit nor affects vested right
accrued to either party and the amendment seeks to determine the real question of
controversy between the parties, it shall be permitted to be made.
Article 227 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Vijay Hathising Shah vs Gitaben Parshottamdas Mukhi . on 25 February, 2019
ii)2019 (5) SCC 360 (Vijay Hathising Shah and another Vs. Gitaben
Parshottamdaas Mukhi and others)
14/23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/