Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.73 seconds)
R Subbarao Maney vs B.C. Murthy Kumar on 6 May, 2021 cites

Celina Coelho Pereira & Ors vs Ulhas Mahabaleshwar Kholkar & Ors on 30 October, 2009

In Celina Coelho Pereira v. Ulhas Mahabaleshwar Kholkar [(2010) 1 SCC 217 : (2010) 1 SCC (Civ) 69] the High Court had non-suited the landlord on the ground that he had not pleaded that the business of the firm was conducted by its partners, but by two other persons and that the tenant had parted with the premises by sub-letting them to the said two persons under the garb of deed of partnership by constituting a bogus firm. This Court observed that there is substantial pleading to that effect. The true test, the two-Judge Bench observed, was whether the other side has been taken by surprise or prejudice has been caused to him. In all circumstances, it cannot be said that because of 25 variance between pleading and proof, the rule of secundum allegata et probata would be strictly applicable. In the present case, we are inclined to hold that it cannot be said that the evidence is not in line with the pleading and in total variance with it or there is virtual contradiction. Thus, the finding returned by the High Court on this score is unacceptable."
Supreme Court of India Cites 27 - Cited by 202 - R M Lodha - Full Document

Bhagwati Prasad vs Shri Chandramaul on 19 October, 1965

21. Further, "15. The relevant principle relating to circumstances in which the deficiency in, or absence of, pleadings could be ignored, was stated by a Constitution Bench of this Court in Bhagwati Prasad v. Chandramaul [AIR 1966 SC 735] : (AIR p. 738, para 10) "10. ... If a plea is not specifically made and yet it is covered by an issue by implication, and the parties knew that the said plea was involved in the trial, then the mere fact that the plea was not expressly taken in the pleadings would not necessarily disentitle a party from relying upon it 26 if it is satisfactorily proved by evidence. The general rule no doubt is that the relief should be founded on pleadings made by the parties. But where the substantial matters relating to the title of both parties to the suit are touched, though indirectly or even obscurely, in the issues, and evidence has been led about them, then the argument that a particular matter was not expressly taken in the pleadings would be purely formal and technical and cannot succeed in every case. What the Court has to consider in dealing with such an objection is: did the parties know that the matter in question was involved in the trial, and did they lead evidence about it? If it appears that the parties did not know that the matter was in issue at the trial and one of them has had no opportunity to lead evidence in respect of it, that undoubtedly would be a different matter. To allow one party to rely upon a matter in respect of which the other party did not lead evidence and has had no opportunity to lead evidence, would introduce considerations of prejudice, and in doing justice to one party, the Court cannot do injustice to another."
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 277 - Full Document

Badat And Co vs East India Trading Co on 10 May, 1963

"23. The said aspect can be looked from another angle. Rules 3, 4 and 5 of Order 8 form 23 an integral code dealing with the manner in which allegations of fact in the plaint should be traversed and the legal consequences flowing from its non-compliance. It is obligatory on the part of the defendant to specifically deal with each allegation in the plaint and when the defendant denies any such fact, he must not do so evasively but answer the point of substance. It is clearly postulated therein that it shall not be sufficient for a defendant to deny generally the grounds alleged by the plaintiffs but he must be specific with each allegation of fact (se Badat and Co. v. East India Trading Co.)
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 179 - Full Document
1