Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.17 seconds)
Kartick Chandra Das vs Rabi Dutta & Ors on 9 March, 2010 cites

State Bank Of Hyderabad vs Town Municipal Council on 1 December, 2006

5. Mr. Chatterjee, learned senior advocate appearing for the plaintiff/petitioner contended that the trial Court acted illegally in the exercise of its jurisdiction in dismissing the application for amendment. Various decisions were relied on by him to contend that the trial Court was required to adopt a liberal approach while considering the said application, viz. AIR 1969 SC 1267 : Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal v. National Building Material Supply, Gurgaon, (2007) 1 SCC 765 : State Bank of Hyderabad v. Town Municipal Council, 2007 (2) CLJ (Cal) 781 : Sk. Abdul Kalam & ors. v. Umapada Maity & ors., (2003) 2 WBLR (Cal) 243 : Ramendranath Banerjee v. Pradip Kumar Sen, 2002 (1) RCR 405 : Swami Vivekanand Shishu Mandir v. Begam, and AIR 2000 Allahabad 90 : M/s. Om Rice Mill, Jaspur & ors. v. Banaras State Bank Ltd., Kashipur. By the amendment as sought for, the plaintiff/petitioner did not seek to alter the nature and character of the suit; on the contrary, he only sought to describe how the suit premises was inherited by him. The trial Court was not required to 3 consider the merit of the amendment sought for. Unless the plaintiff/petitioner established his ownership in respect of the suit premises, eviction cannot be ordered and, therefore, the amendment being necessary for determining the controversial issues, the trial Court ought to have allowed the application.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 93 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Pancham Dass Chela Mahant Sant Ram vs S.G.P.C., Amritsar on 17 January, 1991

10. I do not find any justification to concur with Mr. Ganguly that only because the argument of the defendant has been closed, that should be a ground for refusing amendment. Order VI Rule 17 makes it clear that the Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to amend his pleadings in such manner and on such 5 terms as may be just. Amendment can even be allowed at the appellate stage. On consideration of the authorities on the point, delay in seeking amendment does not appeal to me to constitute sufficient ground to refuse amendment. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, it appears that the amendment as sought for is not foreign to the scope of the suit. Even after amendment, the suit would remain a suit for eviction of the defendants. It is also settled law that amendment may be allowed to meet a plea raised by the opposite party. One may usefully refer to the decision in AIR 1991 SC 511 : Pancham Dass Chela Mahant Sant Ram v. S.G.P.C., Amritsar, where this principle was applied. The plea of malafide set up by the defendants/opposite parties is not established by reliable evidence. If the amendment were to be allowed, no accrued right of the defendants/opposite parties would stand infringed. Of course the defendants/opposite parties would be inconvenienced but that could have been taken care of by imposing compensatory costs.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 12 - Full Document

Ramendranath Banerjee vs Pradip Kumar Sen on 10 June, 2003

5. Mr. Chatterjee, learned senior advocate appearing for the plaintiff/petitioner contended that the trial Court acted illegally in the exercise of its jurisdiction in dismissing the application for amendment. Various decisions were relied on by him to contend that the trial Court was required to adopt a liberal approach while considering the said application, viz. AIR 1969 SC 1267 : Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal v. National Building Material Supply, Gurgaon, (2007) 1 SCC 765 : State Bank of Hyderabad v. Town Municipal Council, 2007 (2) CLJ (Cal) 781 : Sk. Abdul Kalam & ors. v. Umapada Maity & ors., (2003) 2 WBLR (Cal) 243 : Ramendranath Banerjee v. Pradip Kumar Sen, 2002 (1) RCR 405 : Swami Vivekanand Shishu Mandir v. Begam, and AIR 2000 Allahabad 90 : M/s. Om Rice Mill, Jaspur & ors. v. Banaras State Bank Ltd., Kashipur. By the amendment as sought for, the plaintiff/petitioner did not seek to alter the nature and character of the suit; on the contrary, he only sought to describe how the suit premises was inherited by him. The trial Court was not required to 3 consider the merit of the amendment sought for. Unless the plaintiff/petitioner established his ownership in respect of the suit premises, eviction cannot be ordered and, therefore, the amendment being necessary for determining the controversial issues, the trial Court ought to have allowed the application.
Calcutta High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 1 - S K Mukherjee - Full Document

Swami Vivekanand Shishu Mandir And Anr. vs Fehmida Begam on 6 November, 2001

5. Mr. Chatterjee, learned senior advocate appearing for the plaintiff/petitioner contended that the trial Court acted illegally in the exercise of its jurisdiction in dismissing the application for amendment. Various decisions were relied on by him to contend that the trial Court was required to adopt a liberal approach while considering the said application, viz. AIR 1969 SC 1267 : Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal v. National Building Material Supply, Gurgaon, (2007) 1 SCC 765 : State Bank of Hyderabad v. Town Municipal Council, 2007 (2) CLJ (Cal) 781 : Sk. Abdul Kalam & ors. v. Umapada Maity & ors., (2003) 2 WBLR (Cal) 243 : Ramendranath Banerjee v. Pradip Kumar Sen, 2002 (1) RCR 405 : Swami Vivekanand Shishu Mandir v. Begam, and AIR 2000 Allahabad 90 : M/s. Om Rice Mill, Jaspur & ors. v. Banaras State Bank Ltd., Kashipur. By the amendment as sought for, the plaintiff/petitioner did not seek to alter the nature and character of the suit; on the contrary, he only sought to describe how the suit premises was inherited by him. The trial Court was not required to 3 consider the merit of the amendment sought for. Unless the plaintiff/petitioner established his ownership in respect of the suit premises, eviction cannot be ordered and, therefore, the amendment being necessary for determining the controversial issues, the trial Court ought to have allowed the application.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 3 - Full Document
1