Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.40 seconds)
Chandrashekhar S/O Pandurang Tumsare vs Dr. Balkrishna S/O Shivkaran Changani ... on 22 February, 2016 cites

Vidyabai & Ors vs Padmalatha & Anr on 12 December, 2008

Relying on the judgments given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vidyabai and others vs. Padmalatha and another reported in 2009(4) Mh.L.J. 30 and the judgment given by this Court in the case of Chhabubai Haribhau Badakh vs. S.H. Khatod and Sons and another reported in 2009(6) Mh.L.J. 760, it is submitted that the application filed by the petitioner seeking permission to amend the written statement, after commencement of the trial and in the absence of averments to show that inspite of due diligence the defendant could not bring on record the facts sought to be incorporated by the proposed amendment, the civil application is liable to be dismissed and it is rightly dismissed by the learned trial Judge. It is submitted that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity and it need not be interfered with and it is prayed that the petition be dismissed with costs.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 685 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Iridium India Telecom Ltd vs Motorola Inc on 5 January, 2005

4. Shri P.D. Randive, learned Advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the embargo created by the proviso below Rule 17 of Order VI of the Code of Civil Procedure will not be applicable. It is submitted that the provisions of Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure as amended by the Maharashtra Amendment of 1983 govern the trial of civil suits by the Courts in Maharashtra. It is submitted that Section 122 of the Code of Civil Procedure recognizes the rule making powers of the High Court, and the Maharashtra Amendment of 1983 which amends the Code of Civil Procedure in so ::: Uploaded on - 23/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 27/02/2016 23:16:14 ::: 4 wp3147.14 far as it is applicable to the State of Maharashtra, is a special law and it will prevail. It is submitted that Section 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure saves the Maharashtra Amendment of 1983 to the Code of Civil Procedure and the Maharashtra Amendment of 1983 will be applicable even after the amendment of the Code of Civil Procedure on 01-07-2002. The learned Advocate for the petitioner has relied on the judgment given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Iridium India Telecom Ltd. v. Motorola Inc. reported in AIR 2005 SC 514(1), particularly paragraph No.44 of the judgment and has submitted that Section 97(1) of the Amending Act has the effect of sweeping away the amendments made and the provisions inserted in the Principal Act by the State Legislature, or the High Court in exercise of its delegated powers of legislation, and to declare that all such amendments inconsistent with the provisions of the Code would stand repealed. It is submitted that thus considering the conjoint effect of the provisions of Section 4 and Section 122 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Section 97(1) of the Amending Act, it has to be held that the proviso below Rule 17 of Oder VI of the Code of Civil Procedure, which is added in the Central Act will not apply to the civil suits tried by the Courts situated in the State of Maharashtra as there is no such proviso below Rule 17 of Order VI of the Code of Civil Procedure as amended ::: Uploaded on - 23/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 27/02/2016 23:16:14 ::: 5 wp3147.14 by the Maharashtra Amendment of 1983. It is submitted that therefore, the amendment sought by the petitioner has to be liberally considered and allowed on the general principles and it cannot be rejected in view of the embargo created by the proviso below Rule 17 of Order VI of the Code of Civil Procedure (Central Act) and on the ground that the petitioner has not been able to show that inspite of due diligence he cannot bring on the record the facts sought to be brought on the record by the proposed amendment. It is prayed that the impugned order be set aside and the application filed by the petitioner seeking permission to amend the written statement be allowed.
Supreme Court of India Cites 47 - Cited by 133 - Full Document
1   2 Next