TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court dismisses appeal on amendment application, emphasizing distinction between procedural & substantive changes.</h1> The High Court dismissed the appeal against the order disallowing the second application for amendment to the plaint for damages related to the right to ... Whether the order is a judgment within the meaning of clause 15 of the Letters Patent it has to be found out that the order affects the merits of the action between the parties by determining some right or liability? Whether there has been a determination of any right or liability? Held that:- Appeal dismissed. The amendment order is not purely of discretion. Even with regard to discretionary orders the appellate court can interfere where the order is insupportable in law or is unjust. The High Court considered the second application for amendment to be a new claim based on the new set of facts which became barred on the date of the application for amendment. In exceptional cases an amendment has been allowed where the effect is to take away from a defendant a legal right which has accrued to him by lapse of time, because the court found that consideration of lapse of time is out weighed by the special circumstances of the case. The High Court rightly found that there were no special circumstances to entitle the appellant to introduce by amendments such claim. Issues:- Appeal against the order allowing an amendment of the plaint for damages in relation to the right to pension.- Interpretation of the term 'judgment' in the context of an order allowing an amendment of the plaint.- Consideration of whether an amendment affecting the merits of the controversy between the parties constitutes a judgment within the meaning of the Letters Patent.Analysis:The judgment in question pertains to an appeal from the High Court of Bombay regarding the allowance of an amendment to the plaint for damages related to the right to pension. The appellant initially filed a suit in 1964 claiming salary in lieu of notice and gratuity. Subsequently, amendments were sought to support a claim for pension, which were initially refused but later allowed. The respondent appealed against the order allowing the amendment, leading to the High Court setting aside the amendment order.The crux of the issue lies in the interpretation of the term 'judgment' concerning orders allowing amendments to the plaint. The appellant argued that an order for amendment is not a judgment as it pertains to procedural rights, while the respondent contended that an amendment affecting substantive rights constitutes a judgment. Reference was made to various legal precedents, including the definition of 'judgment' as a decision affecting the merits of the question between the parties by determining some right or liability.The judgment extensively discusses the criteria for categorizing an order on an application for amendment as a judgment within the meaning of the Letters Patent. It distinguishes between amendments merely regulating procedure and those affecting substantive rights, particularly in cases where an amendment removes a defense based on limitation. The court emphasized that an amendment taking away a defense of immunity by reason of limitation qualifies as a judgment as it impacts the merits of the controversy between the parties.Furthermore, the judgment highlights the significance of considering the effect of an amendment on the rights and liabilities of the parties involved. It underscores that an order becomes a judgment if it determines a right or liability based on limitation, thereby constituting a final decision concerning the merits of the case. The court also emphasized the need to examine the nature of the order to ascertain if it affects the merits of the action between the parties by determining some right or liability.Ultimately, the High Court upheld its decision to disallow the second application for amendment, reasoning that the new claim for damages in relation to pension was not supported by special circumstances justifying the introduction of such a claim. Consequently, the appeal against the High Court's judgment was dismissed, affirming the decision to disallow the second application for amendment.In conclusion, the judgment provides a detailed analysis of the legal principles governing orders allowing amendments to the plaint and clarifies the circumstances under which such orders may be considered judgments within the legal framework outlined by the Letters Patent.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
