Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.27 seconds)
Shernaz Farooukh Lawyer And Anr vs Manek Dara Sukhadwall And 6 Ors on 21 December, 2022 cites

M/S. Estralla Rubber vs Dass Estate (Private) Ltd on 12 September, 2001

14. To bolster up this submission, Mr. Khambata placed reliance on the judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of 1) Life Insurance Corporation of India vs. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another1; 2) Estralla Rubber vs. Dass Estate (P) Ltd. 2; 3) Baldev Singh and Others vs. Manohar Singh and Another 3; a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Mahadeo vs. Balaji and Others4; and an Order passed by the learned single Jude of this Court in Phonographic Performance Limited vs. Entertainment Network India Ltd. & Ors.5.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 510 - S V Patil - Full Document

Baldev Singh & Ors. Etc vs Manohar Singh & Anr. Etc on 3 August, 2006

14. To bolster up this submission, Mr. Khambata placed reliance on the judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of 1) Life Insurance Corporation of India vs. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another1; 2) Estralla Rubber vs. Dass Estate (P) Ltd. 2; 3) Baldev Singh and Others vs. Manohar Singh and Another 3; a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Mahadeo vs. Balaji and Others4; and an Order passed by the learned single Jude of this Court in Phonographic Performance Limited vs. Entertainment Network India Ltd. & Ors.5.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 542 - Full Document

Mahadeo S/O Maruti Bhanje vs Balaji S/O Shivaji Pathade on 4 September, 2012

22. Mr. Khambata, learned senior counsel for defendants 1 and 2 would urge that the trial in the instant suit did not commence before the application for amendment came to be filed as the affidavits in lieu of examination in chief were tendered post filing of the instant application. To lend support to this submission, Mr. Vishal Parekar, P.A. ...12 ial-35020-2022.doc Khambata banked upon the pronouncement of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Mahadeo (supra). In the said case, the Division Bench answered the reference to the effect that the trial in civil suit commences from the date of filing of affidavit in lieu of examination in chief of the witness and proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code would came into play only after the stage of affidavit in lieu of examination in chief.
Bombay High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 6 - U D Salvi - Full Document

Rani Purnima Devi And Another vs Kumar Khagendra Narayan Dev And Another on 22 August, 1961

and Rani Purnima Devi and Anr v. Kumar Khagendra Narayan Dev, (1962) 3 SCR 195. In the latter case this Court, after referring to the principles stated in the former case emphasised that where there are suspicious circumstances the onus will be on the propounder to explain them to the satisfaction of the Court before the will could be accepted as genuine; and where the caveator alleges undue influence, fraud and coercion the onus is on hi to prove the same. It has been further pointed out that the suspicious circumstances may be as to the genuineness of the signature of the testator, the condition of the testator's mind, the dispositions made in the will which may be unnatural or unfair or improbable Vishal Parekar, P.A. ...11 ial-35020-2022.doc when considered in the light of the relevant circumstances. if the caveator does not discharge the burden which rests upon him in establishing the circumstances which show that the will had been obtained by fraud or undue influence a probate of the will must necessarily be granted if it is established that the testator had full testamentary capacity and had in fact executed it validly with a free will and mind.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 344 - K N Wanchoo - Full Document

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

23. The question as to when, for the purpose of the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17, the trial can be said to have commenced, arose for consideration in the case of Vidyabai and Others vs. Padmalatha and Another7. In the said case, the Supreme Court enunciated that the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 is couched in a mandatory form. The Court's jurisdiction to allow the application for amendment is taken away unless the condition precedent therefor are satisfied, namely, it must come to a conclusion that inspite of due diligence the parties could not have raised the matter before the commencement of the trial. Analyzing the facts of the said case, the Supreme Court indicated the date when the trial can be said to have commenced as under:
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 685 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Mohinder Kumar Mehra vs Roop Rani Mehra on 11 December, 2017

24. The aforesaid pronouncement was followed by the Supreme Court in the case of Mohinder Kumar Mehra vs. Roop Rani Mehra and Others8. It was observed, inter alia, that after the issues are framed and case is fixed for hearing and the party having right to begin is to produce his evidence, the trial of suit commences. In the facts of the said case, which have a resemblance to the facts in the case at hand, the Supreme Court found that technically the trial commenced when the date was fixed for leading evidence by the plaintiff but actually the amendment application was filed before the evidence was led by the plaintiff. It was thus held that the bar contained in the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code may not operate.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 132 - A Bhushan - Full Document

M/S. South Konkan Distilleries & Anr vs Prabhakar Gajanan Naik & Ors on 9 September, 2008

25] The principles applicable to the amendments of the plaint are equally applicable to the amendments of the written statements. The courts are more generous in allowing the amendment of the written statement as question of prejudice is less likely to operate in that event. The defendant has a right to take alternative plea in defense which, however, is subject to an exception that by the proposed amendment other side should not be subjected to injustice and that any admission made in favor of the plaintiff is not withdrawn. All amendments of the pleadings should be allowed which are necessary for determination of the real controversies in the suit provided the proposed amendment does not alter or substitute a new cause of action on the basis of which the original lis was raised or defense taken. Inconsistent and contradictory allegations in negation to the admitted position of facts or mutually destructive allegations of facts should not be allowed to be incorporated by means of amendment to the pleadings. The proposed amendment should not cause such prejudice to the other side which cannot be compensated by costs. No amendment should be allowed which amounts to or relates in defeating a legal right accruing to the opposite party on account of lapse of time. The delay in filing the application for amendment of the pleadings should be properly compensated by costs and error or mistake which, if not fraudulent, should not be made a ground for rejecting the application for amendment of plaint or written statement. (See South Konkan Distilleries & Anr. v. Prabhakar Gajanan Naik & Ors., (2008) 14 SCC 632).
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 122 - T Chatterjee - Full Document
1   2 Next