Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.44 seconds)Article 227 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Limitation Act, 1963
Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal & Ors vs K.K. Modi & Ors on 22 March, 2006
"11.11. With great respect to the learned Judges of the Division Bench, we differ in that view. The two latest landmark judgements of the Supreme Court in Baldev Singh Case and Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal case clarify that the point of limitation is immaterial when the Court is called upon to determine the real question in controversy between the parties and in that direction when there is no prejudice caused to the other side. The Supreme Court also clarified that the Court should take notice of the subsequent events and should shorten the litigation to preserve and safeguard the rights of both parties and subserve the ends of justice."
Thiru Alankadu Immudi Ahora Dharma ... vs Udumalpet Samayapuram Ayira Vaisya ... on 22 July, 2005
19. Narrating all the above said case laws M.Karpagavinayagam,J. (as he then was) in the case Thiru Alankadu Immudi Ahora Dharma Sivachariar Aiyra Vaisya Madam, Nerinchipettai, Bhavani Taluk, Erode District Vs. Udumalpet Samayapuram Ariya Vaisya Sangam, rep.by its President No.5, Nellukadai Street, Udumalpettai, Coimbatore District reported in 2005(4) CTC 664 has laid down 12 guidelines for the courts to deal with the amendment application under order 6 rule 17, which are as follows:
B.K-Narayana Pillai vs Pararneswaran Pillai & Anr on 13 December, 1999
" 3. The purpose and object of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC is to allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just. The power to allow the amendment is wide and can be exercised at any stage of the proceedings in the interest of justice on the basis of guidelines laid down by various High Courts and this Court. It is true that the amendment cannot be claimed as a matter of right under all circumstances. But it is equally true that the courts while deciding such prayers should not adopt a hypertechnical approach. Liberal approach should be the general rule particularly in cases where the other side can be compensated with the costs. Technicalities of law should not be permitted to hamper the courts in the administration of justice between the parties. Amendments are allowed in the pleadings to avoid uncalled-for multiplicity of litigation."
D.P. Lon vs Collector Of Central Excise & Customs on 13 March, 2003
In yet another judgement, the Honble Supreme Court in Punjab National Bank Vs. Indian Bank and another reported in 2003(6) SCC 79 while dealing with the duties and powers of the court under order 6 rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, held that that if the amendments sought merely for clarifying the preexisting averments in the plaint, the same has to be allowed except when it is sought to make a new addition and for that purpose the law was laid down that it is the duty of the court to arrive at a conclusion by reading the entire plaint as a whole. After considering the large number of case laws on the issue the Honble Apex Court has held in paragraph 15, which runs as follows:
1