Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 26 (0.32 seconds)
Saurashtra vs State on 12 August, 2010 cites

R.Balakrishna Pillai vs State Of Kerala on 28 February, 2003

A belated counterclaim must be discouraged by this Court. See Ramesh Chand Ardawatiya v. Anil Panjwani. We are, however, not unmindful of the decisions of this Court where a defendant has been allowed to amend his written statement so as to enable him to elaborate his defence or to take additional pleas in support of his case. The Court in such matters has a wide discretion. It must, however, subserve the ultimate cause of justice. It may be true that further litigation should be endeavoured to be avoided. It may also be true that joinder of several causes of action in a suit is permissible. The Court, must, however, exercise the discretionary jurisdiction in a judicious manner. While considering that subservance of justice is the ultimate goal, the statutory limitation shall not be overstepped. Grant of relief will depend upon the factual background involved in each case. The Court, while undoubtedly would take into consideration the questions of serious injustice or irreparable loss, but nevertheless should bear in mind that a provision for amendment of pleadings is not available as a matter of right under all circumstances. One cause of action cannot be allowed to be substituted by another. Ordinarily, effect of an admission made in earlier pleadings shall not be permitted to be taken away.
Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 563 - Full Document

Ganga Bai vs Vijay Kumar & Ors on 9 April, 1974

38. The rule, however, is not a universal one and under certain circumstances, such an amendment may be allowed by the court notwithstanding the law of limitation. The fact that the claim is barred by law of limitation is but one of the factors to be taken into account by the court in exercising the discretion as to whether the amendment should be allowed or refused, but it does not affect the power of the court if the amendment is required in the interests of justice. Ganga Bai v. Vijai Kumar [1974 (2) SCC 393]; Arundhati Mishra v. Sri Ram Charitra Pandey [1994 (2) SCC 29].
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 396 - Y V Chandrachud - Full Document

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 :
Bombay High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 118 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next