Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.28 seconds)Om Prakash Gupta vs Ranbir B. Goyal on 18 January, 2002
The learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance
on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Om Prakash
Gupta Vs. Ranbir B. Goyal 2002(1) PLJ 169 wherein it has been held that
the Court can take note of the subsequent events in order to determine the
real controversy.
Trojan & Co. Ltd vs Rm. N. N. Nagappa Chettiar on 20 March, 1953
In Trojan & Co. v. R.M.N.N.
Nagappa Chettiar (AIR 1953 SC 235) this Court has
held that the decision of a case cannot be based on
grounds outside the pleadings of the parties and it is the
case pleaded that has to be found; without the
amendment of the pleading the Court would not be
entitled to modify or alter the relief.
Ram Kumar Barnwal vs Ram Lakhan (Dead) on 14 May, 2007
In support of this contention the learned counsel for the
petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Ram Kumar Barnwal Vs. Ram Lakhan (dead) 2007(3)
RCR (Civil) 279 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been pleased to
lay down as under :-
Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal & Ors vs K.K. Modi & Ors on 22 March, 2006
The learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance
on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh Kumar
Aggarwal & Ors. Vs. K.K. Modi & Ors. 2006(2) RCR (Civil) 577, wherein
the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been pleased to lay down that it is
Civil Revision No. 6410 of 2007 (O&M)
-9-
mandatory on court to allow all amendments which are necessary for the
purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties
and Court should not go into the correctness or falsity of the case in the
amendment. It should not record a finding on the merits of the amendment
and the merits of the amendment sought to be incorporated by way of
amendment are not to be adjudged at the stage of allowing the prayer for
amendment.
Article 227 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Ramesh Kumar vs Kesho Ram on 30 September, 1991
10. Earlier in Ramesh Kumar v. Kesho Ram 1992(1)
RCR (Rent) 370 : (1992 Supp. (2) SCC 623), it was held
as follows:
Pasupuleti Venkateswarlu vs The Motor & General Traders on 18 March, 1975
In Pasupuleti
Venkateswarlu v. The Motor & General Traders (1975
(1) SCC 770), this Court held that a fact arising after
the lis, coming to the notice of the Court and having a
fundamental impact on the right to relief or the manner
of moulding it and brought diligently to the notice of the
Court cannot be blinked at. The Court may in such cases
bend the rules of procedure if no specific provision of
law or rule of fairplay is violated for it would promote
substantial justice provided that there is absence of
other disentitling factors or just circumstances. The
court speaking through Krishna Iyer, J. affirmed the
proposition that court can, so long as the litigation
pends, take not of updated facts to promote substantial
justice. However, the court cautioned: (i) the event
should be one as would stultify or render inept the
decretal remedy. (ii) rules of procedure may be bent if no
specific provision or fairplay is violated and there is no
other special circumstance repelling resort to that
course in law or justice, (iii) such cognizance of
subsequent events and developments should be cautious,
and (iv) the rules of fairness to both sides should be
scrupulously obeyed.
1