<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1957 (2) TMI 68 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172743</link>
    <description>Amendment of pleadings may be permitted at the appellate stage even after limitation has expired where the proposed change does not introduce a new cause of action, does not alter the nature of the relief, and is necessary to decide the real controversy. The mere fact that a fresh suit on the amended claim would be time-barred does not by itself defeat amendment. The controlling consideration is whether the opposite party can still be placed in the same position, with costs if appropriate, and whether any prejudice is irremediable. On the facts, the amendment was allowed because the defect was formal rather than substantive and the defendant was not taken by surprise.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 07 Feb 1957 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 28 Aug 2015 12:48:30 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=395142" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1957 (2) TMI 68 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172743</link>
      <description>Amendment of pleadings may be permitted at the appellate stage even after limitation has expired where the proposed change does not introduce a new cause of action, does not alter the nature of the relief, and is necessary to decide the real controversy. The mere fact that a fresh suit on the amended claim would be time-barred does not by itself defeat amendment. The controlling consideration is whether the opposite party can still be placed in the same position, with costs if appropriate, and whether any prejudice is irremediable. On the facts, the amendment was allowed because the defect was formal rather than substantive and the defendant was not taken by surprise.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 07 Feb 1957 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172743</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>