Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the plaint could be amended under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to include the omitted CENVAT credit component, and whether such amendment was barred by limitation or by Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Analysis: The plaint and accompanying chart already disclosed the service tax claim and separately reflected the CENVAT credit adjustment, showing that the additional amount was part of the same underlying monetary claim and that its omission from the prayer was inadvertent. The amendment did not introduce a new cause of action or alter the basic nature of the suit. The objection based on limitation was not determinative at the amendment stage because the issue depended on factual proof and could be examined at trial. The bar under Order II Rule 2 did not apply to correction of a computational omission in respect of an already pleaded claim.
Conclusion: The amendment was rightly allowed, and the objections based on limitation and Order II Rule 2 failed.
Ratio Decidendi: An amendment that merely corrects an inadvertent omission in the quantification of an already pleaded claim, without introducing a new cause of action or changing the nature of the suit, is not barred by limitation or Order II Rule 2 at the amendment stage.