Posts

Showing posts with the label Amendment of Pleadings

Must Read

M.N. Clubwala v. Fida Hussain Saheb, 1964

Image
M.N. Clubwala v. Fida Hussain Saheb, (1964) 6 SCR 642, 651 This case interpretation/case summary is written by Ms. Swati Sharma a student at the Faculty of Law (Delhi University). If you also want to publish your articles or case interpretations/summaries, send your work to  niyamskanoon09@gmail.com . Case Details PETITIONER:  MRS. M. N. CLUBWALA AND ANR. Vs. RESPONDENT: FIDA HUSSAIN SAHEB AND ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 03/02/1964 BENCH: MUDHOLKAR, J.R. SUBBARAO, K. CITATION: 1965 AIR 610 1964 SCR (6) 642 Introduction   The case of M.N. Clubwala v. Fida Hussain Saheb (1964) under the Delhi Rent Control Act is a landmark judgment that clarifies the distinction between a lease and a license and the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller. The primary issue in this case was whether the agreements between the landlord (M.N. Clubwala) and the shopkeepers (Fida Hussain Saheb) created a lease or a license.  Facts of the Case M.N. Clubwala (Landlord) used his building as market by
Post a Comment
Read more

M/s Ganesh Trading Co. v. Moji Ram AIR 1978 SC 484

Image
Facts Appellant-Plaintiff, filed a suit through Shri Jai Prakash, a partner of the firm, for the recovery of some amount due on the respondent-defendant, based on a promissory note. The suit was filed just before the expiry of the period of limitation for the claim of payment The respondent-defendant in a written statement denied the assertions made in the plaint and also contended that the suit was incompetent as the plaintiff-appellant was not a registered firm. Thereafter the plaintiff filed an application, under Rule 17, Order VI of the Civil Code, for a grant of leave to amend the plaint that was rejected by the Trial Court , on the ground that it would introduce a new cause of action. The plaintiff wanted to mention in the plaint that the plaintiff's firm was actually dissolved prior to the institution of the suit. He asserted that it is a material fact that will enable the Court to determine the true question. A revision petition before the HC was placed by the plaintiff wh
Post a Comment
Read more

Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal v. National Bldg. Material Supply, AIR 1969 SC 1267

Image
Introduction This case is related to amendment of pleadings Rule 17 of Order VI, CPC clearly mentioned this provision of amending the plea. Under this rule, the Court may allow either party to amend or alter his pleadings at any stage of proceedings. This rule empowers the Court to allow amendment of pleadings for the purpose of determining the real question. Facts The plaintiff-Manohar Lal instituted a suit in the name of appellant-Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal, since all the business were carried in the name of appellant.  The suit was filed in the Court of subordinate Judge for a recovery of the payment due to the defendant for supplying timber.  The defendant contended that as the plaintiff was an unregistered firm, it is incompetent to sue.  The plaintiff applied for leave to amend the plaint which had been allowed by the Court.  The defendant now in a written statement made two contentions:-  Manohar Lal was not the sole owner of the business but his other brothers were also the owners
Post a Comment
Read more