TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the High Court was justified in refusing amendment of the memorandum of appeal on the ground of delay, and whether the amendment was necessary to enable adjudication of the real controversy as to the market value and potentiality of the acquired land.
Analysis: Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 permits amendment at any stage when it is necessary for determining the real questions in controversy. In land acquisition matters, the market value on the date of notification depends upon the nature and potentiality of the land, and a party may seek amendment of pleadings to place that real controversy before the court. The mere fact that the application was made after a long lapse of time was not, by itself, a sufficient basis to refuse amendment, especially when the foundation for the request was not shown to be false or untenable and the amendment was sought to align the appeal with comparable decisions relied upon by the appellant.
Conclusion: The refusal to allow amendment was unjustified; the amendment application ought to have been allowed.
Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the order refusing amendment was set aside, the amendment was granted, and the matter was sent back to the High Court for disposal of the appeal on merits.
Ratio Decidendi: An amendment of pleadings should be permitted when it is necessary to determine the real controversy, and delay alone does not justify refusal if no prejudice or falsity in the foundation of the amendment is established.
TaxTMI 
